Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

576-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The chronic nature of substance use disorder requires continuity of care after residential treatment. Only a small proportion of patients, however, adhere to aftercare follow-up plans and the relapse rates remain between 40- 80% within a year post-discharge. Synthesis of evidence showed that facilitated referral (FR) significantly increased follow- u

The chronic nature of substance use disorder requires continuity of care after residential treatment. Only a small proportion of patients, however, adhere to aftercare follow-up plans and the relapse rates remain between 40- 80% within a year post-discharge. Synthesis of evidence showed that facilitated referral (FR) significantly increased follow- up adherence and resulted to positive outcomes. The study aimed to examine the effectiveness of FR in improving access, follow-up adherence and engagement to aftercare services, and relapse rate after a month post- discharge.

After the Institutional Review Board approval, 30 participants were recruited in two residential treatment facilities. Questionnaires, the Assessment of Warning Signs of Relapse and Health leads surveys were utilized to collect data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, McNemar, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Results showed that FR significantly increased access to many community aftercare services (p<.05). A significant reduction in relapse risk post-intervention was also noted (Z= -3.180, p= .001). Additionally, most participants discharged with scheduled appointments followed-up and had continued engagement with aftercare services. Eight participants maintained sobriety and 18 were lost to follow-up a month post-discharge, while four relapsed in the facility.

Overall, FR increased access to needed aftercare services and significantly decreased the relapse percentage risk post-discharge. FR is a promising intervention that can be implemented for practice. Future research is recommended to further examine the correlation with follow-up adherence and continuous engagement to aftercare services, and relapse rate at 30 days after discharge.

ContributorsTenorio, Roxanne Carla R. (Author) / Moffett, Carol (Thesis advisor)
Created2018-04-29
162172-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Introduction: For 2019 in the U.S. opioid overdose deaths neared 50,000 people. Increasing the number of Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) programs available for the population is important to address this crisis (NIDA, n.d.). Objective: To evaluate if MAT improves retention rates for those with opioid use disorder (OUD) for

Introduction: For 2019 in the U.S. opioid overdose deaths neared 50,000 people. Increasing the number of Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) programs available for the population is important to address this crisis (NIDA, n.d.). Objective: To evaluate if MAT improves retention rates for those with opioid use disorder (OUD) for one Arizona organization’s (AZOrg) seven treatment facilities. Methods: ASU IRB approval obtained, and de-identified data were abstracted from the electronic records of AZOrg, for a year, March 2020 to February 2021. The data included patient age, sex, date of admission, length of stay, substance abused, and if MAT (buprenorphine, naltrexone, Methadone) was prescribed. Intellectus statistical package was used for analysis. Results: Among 3261 patients with a mean age of 35.81(18-82) years, 1528 (46.85%) were admitted for OUD that included 371 (24.28%) females, 686 of whom (44.9%) received MAT. For those treated with MAT mean length of stay was 35.78 (SD 30.34) days compared to a mean of 27.46 (30.79) days for those without MAT treatment. This finding was significant, for all forms of MAT, based on a two-tailed Two-Tailed Independent Samples t-Test test, p<.001. Discussion/Conclusion: Increasing awareness about OUD and MAT is needed when providing care to patients with OUD. Providing organization-specific information regarding MAT benefits can enhance the adoption of this intervention and aid in the recovery of those being treated for OUD. This analysis did not include the possible confounding factors such as a history of incarceration, duration of OUD before admission, or structural differences of individual facilities.
Created2021-04-29