Dataset Information

Identifying optimal level-of-care placement decisions for adolescent substance use treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adolescents respond differentially to substance use treatment based on their individual needs and goals. Providers may benefit from guidance (via decision rules) for personalizing aspects of treatment, such as level-of-care (LOC) placements, like choosing between outpatient or inpatient care. The field lacks an empirically-supported foundation to inform the development of an adaptive LOC-placement protocol. This work begins to build the evidence base for adaptive protocols by estimating them from a large observational dataset.

Methods

We estimated two-stage LOC-placement protocols adapted to individual adolescent characteristics collected from the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs assessment tool (n = 10,131 adolescents). We used a modified version of Q-learning, a regression-based method for estimating personalized treatment rules over time, to estimate four protocols, each targeting a potentially distinct treatment goal: one primary outcome (a composite of ten positive treatment outcomes) and three secondary (substance frequency, substance problems, and emotional problems). We compared the adaptive protocols to non-adaptive protocols using an independent dataset.

Results

Intensive outpatient was recommended for all adolescents at intake for the primary outcome, while low-risk adolescents were recommended for no further treatment at followup while higher-risk patients were recommended to inpatient. Our adaptive protocols outperformed static protocols by an average of 0.4 standard deviations (95 % confidence interval 0.2-0.6) of the primary outcome.

Conclusions

Adaptive protocols provide a simple one-to-one guide between adolescents' needs and recommended treatment which can be used as decision support for clinicians making LOC-placement decisions.

SUBMITTER: Agniel D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7293956 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Over 1.6 million adolescents in the United States meet criteria for substance use disorders (SUDs). While there are promising treatments for SUDs, adolescents respond to these treatments differentially in part based on the setting in which treatments are delivered. One way to address such individualized response to treatment is through the development of adaptive interventions (AIs): sequences of decision rules for altering treatment based on an individual's needs. This protocol describes a project with the overarching goal of beginning the development of AIs that provide recommendations for altering the setting of an adolescent's substance use treatment. This project has three discrete aims: (1) explore the views of various stakeholders (parents, providers, policymakers, and researchers) on deciding the setting of substance use treatment for an adolescent based on individualized need, (2) generate hypotheses concerning candidate AIs, and (3) compare the relative effectiveness among candidate AIs and non-adaptive interventions commonly used in everyday practice.This project uses a mixed-methods approach. First, we will conduct an iterative stakeholder engagement process, using RAND's ExpertLens online system, to assess the importance of considering specific individual needs and clinical outcomes when deciding the setting for an adolescent's substance use treatment. Second, we will use results from the stakeholder engagement process to analyze an observational longitudinal data set of 15,656 adolescents in substance use treatment, supported by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, using the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs questionnaire. We will utilize methods based on Q-learning regression to generate hypotheses about candidate AIs. Third, we will use robust statistical methods that aim to appropriately handle casemix adjustment on a large number of covariates (marginal structural modeling and inverse probability of treatment weights) to compare the relative effectiveness among candidate AIs and non-adaptive decision rules that are commonly used in everyday practice.This project begins filling a major gap in clinical and research efforts for adolescents in substance use treatment. Findings could be used to inform the further development and revision of influential multi-dimensional assessment and treatment planning tools, or lay the foundation for subsequent experiments to further develop or test AIs for treatment planning.

Project description:While there is broad recognition of the high societal costs of substance use disorders (SUD), treatment rates are low. We examined whether, in the United States, participants with substance or alcohol use disorder would report a greater willingness to enter SUD treatment located in a primary care setting (primary care) or more commonly found specialty care setting in the United States (usual care).Randomized survey-embedded experiment.US web-based research panel in which participants were randomized to read one-paragraph vignettes describing treatment in usual care (specialty drug or alcohol treatment center), primary care or collaborative care within a primary care setting.A total of 42 451 panelists aged 18+ were screened for substance or alcohol use disorder using validated diagnostic criteria. Participants included 344 with a substance use disorder and 634 with an alcohol use disorder not in treatment with no prior treatment history.Willingness to enter treatment across vignettes by condition.Among participants with a substance use disorder, 24.6% of those randomized to usual care reported being willing to enter drug treatment compared with 37.2% for primary care [12.6 percentage point difference; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.8, 24.4) and 34.0% for collaborative care (9.4 percentage point difference; 95% CI = -2.0, 20.8). Among participants with an alcohol use disorder, 17.6% of those randomized to usual care reported being willing to enter alcohol treatment compared with 20.3% for primary care (2.6 percentage point difference; 95% CI = -4.9, 10.1) and 20.8% for collaborative care (3.1 percentage point difference; 95% CI = -4.3, 10.6). The most common reason for not being willing to enter drug (63%) and alcohol (78%) treatment was the belief that treatment was not needed.In the United States, people diagnosed with substance or alcohol use disorders appear to be more willing to enter treatment in a primary care setting than in a specialty drug treatment center. Expanding availability of primary care-based substance use disorder treatment could increase treatment rates in the United States.