Friedmann Peter D, Lemon Stephenie C, Stein Michael D, D'Aunno Thomas A
Division of General Internal Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence 02903, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2003 Jun;38(3):887-903. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00151.
This study examined organization-level characteristics associated with the accessibility of outpatient addiction treatment.
Program directors and clinical supervisors from a nationally representative panel of outpatient substance abuse treatment units in the United States were surveyed in 1990, 1995, and 2000. Accessibility was measured from clinical supervisors' reports of whether the treatment organization provided "treatment on demand" (an average wait time of 48 hours or less for treatment entry), and of whether the program turned away any patients.
In multivariable logistic models, provision of "treatment on demand" increased two-fold from 1990 to 2000 (OR, 1.95; 95 percent CI, 1.5 to 2.6), while reports of turning patients away decreased nonsignificantly. Private for-profit units were twice as likely to provide "treatment on demand" (OR, 2.2; 95 percent CI, 1.3 to 3.6), but seven times more likely to turn patients away (OR, 7.4; 95 percent CI, 3.2 to 17.5) than public programs. Conversely, units that served more indigent populations were less likely to provide "treatment on demand" or to turn patients away. Methadone maintenance programs were also less likely to offer "treatment on demand" (OR, .65; 95 percent CI, .42 to .99), but more likely to turn patients away (OR, 2.4; 95 percent CI, 1.4 to 4.3).
Although the provision of timely addiction treatment appears to have increased throughout the 1990s, accessibility problems persist in programs that care for indigent patients and in methadone maintenance programs.
本研究调查了与门诊成瘾治疗可及性相关的机构层面特征。
1990年、1995年和2000年对来自美国全国具有代表性的门诊药物滥用治疗单位小组的项目主任和临床主管进行了调查。可及性通过临床主管报告治疗机构是否提供“随到随治”(治疗开始的平均等待时间为48小时或更短)以及项目是否拒收任何患者来衡量。
在多变量逻辑模型中,1990年至2000年期间,提供“随到随治”的比例增加了一倍(比值比,1.95;95%置信区间,1.5至2.6),而拒收患者的报告略有下降。私立营利性单位提供“随到随治”的可能性是公立项目的两倍(比值比,2.2;95%置信区间,1.3至3.6),但拒收患者的可能性比公立项目高七倍(比值比,7.4;95%置信区间,3.2至17.5)。相反,服务更多贫困人群的单位提供“随到随治”或拒收患者的可能性较小。美沙酮维持治疗项目提供“随到随治”的可能性也较小(比值比,0.65;95%置信区间,0.42至0.99),但拒收患者的可能性较大(比值比,2.4;95%置信区间,1.4至4.3)。
尽管在整个20世纪90年代及时的成瘾治疗提供情况似乎有所增加,但在照顾贫困患者的项目和美沙酮维持治疗项目中,可及性问题仍然存在。