Assertive Continuing Care for Adolescents Mark D Godley

Assertive Continuing Care for Adolescents Mark D. Godley, Ph. D. , Susan H. Godley, Rh. D. , Michael L. Dennis, Ph. D. , Rod Funk, B. S. , and Lora L. Passetti, M. A. Chestnut Health Systems Bloomington, IL This work is supported by grants from the National Institute on Alcoholism & Alcohol Abuse, the SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, and the Illinois Division of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse. The opinions are those of the author and do not reflect official positions of the government.

Collaborators Several colleagues at Chestnut served as coinvestigators or collaborators on this study. Their contributions made this work possible: Loree Adams, Becky Buddemeyer, Michael Dennis, Rod Funk, Susan Godley, Jen Hammond, Tracy Karvinen, Matt Orndorff, Lora Passetti, Laura Sloan, Ben Wells, Jen White, and Kelli Wright And… Drs. H. Perl & J. Hough, NIAAA; R. Muck & J. Buttler, CSAT; and M. Whitter, Illinois OASA

Questions § Why is continuing care important? § What have we learned about continuing care in treatment programs? § What is an “assertive” approach to continuing care? § What is the critical roll of supervision in Assertive Continuing Care (ACC)? § How does ACC compare to standard practice in terms of implementation and outcome?

Why is Continuing Care Important? § Like many other illnesses, addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition. § Brown et al. , 1989: 60% of youth relapsed in first 90 days after res. tx. § Dennis reports that most youth treated in the CYT outpatient study moved in and out of recovery.

Most Patients Alternate Between Relapse & Recovery (30 mo. follow up) 5% Sustained Recovery 37% Sustained Problems 19% Intermittent, currently in recovery 39% Intermittent, currently not in recovery Source: Dennis et al, forthcoming

Hypertension § Adherence to medication is less than 60% § Adherence to diet & exercise is less than 30% § Re-treated in 12 months: 50 -60% (Mc. Lellan, 2003; Treatment Research Institute)

Diabetes § Adherence to medication is less than 50% § Adherence to diet & exercise is less than 30% § Re-treated in 12 months: 30 -50% (Mc. Lellan, 2003; Treatment Research Institute)

Asthma § Adherence to medication is less than 30% § Re-treated in 12 months: 60 -80% (Mc. Lellan, 2003; Treatment Research Institute)

What Predicts Relapse in these Illnesses? 1. Poor adherence to behavior change requirements (diet, exercise, medication compliance) 2. Low Socioeconomic Status 3. Low Family Support 4. Psychiatric Co-Morbidity (Mc. Lellan, 2003; Treatment Research Institute)

Why is Continuing Care Research in Addiction Treatment Important? § Existing studies reveal high levels of relapse after treatment § The evidence for continuing care is not yet clearly established (Mc. Kay, 2001) § Almost no continuing care studies of adolescents in the scientific literature

Time to Enter Continuing Care and Relapse after Residential Treatment (Adults) 100% Percent of Clients 90% 80% 70% 1999 2000 60% 50% 40% Relapse 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Days from Discharge Source: 1999 & 2000 Statewide TEDS and Godley et al 2004 80 90

Time to Enter Continuing Care and Relapse after Residential Treatment (Age 12 -17) 100% Percent of Clients 90% 80% 1999 70% 2000 60% 50% 40% Relapse 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Days after Residential (capped at 90) Source: 1999 & 2000 Statewide TEDS and Godley et al. , 2004 80 90

Linkage to Continuing Care After Residential Treatment (Adolescents) 1999 Source: 1999 & 2000 Statewide TEDS 2000

Weekly Tx Weekly 12 step meetings Relapse prevention Communication skills training Problem solving component Regular urine tests Meet with parents 1 -2 x month Weekly telephone contact Contact w/ probation/school Referrals to other services Follow up on referrals Discuss probation/school compliance Adherence: Meets 8/12 criteria Actual UCC Expected UCC 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% What does Continuing Care look like in actual practice?

Barriers to Continuing Care § Typical referral process is passive, emulating medical clinics, and presumes the patient is motivated § Treatment Fatigue § Reimbursement methods do little to encourage continuing care § Assertive approaches shift the responsibility for linkage from the client to the provider

Examples of Assertive Approaches § Recovery Management Check-ups (Dennis, Scott, & Funk, 2003) § Multisystemic Therapy (Henggeler, 1999) § Tarrant Co. Juvenile Services-TCAP; Family Preservation (Woods & Haene, 2002) § Case Monitoring and Telephone Support (Foote & Erfurt, 1991; Stout et al. , 1999) § Assertive Continuing Care Study (Godley et al. , 2002)

Suggested Goals of CC § Encouraging and Priming Prosocial Activities § Reduce Social Risk § Social Skill Development § Monitoring to Prevent Relapse* § Support* § Linkage to Other Services § Re-Intervention for Major Relapse* *Essential CC Functions

A Controlled Study of the Effectiveness of Assertive Continuing Care

Research Questions § To determine the effectiveness of usual vs. assertive continuing care following residential treatment in: § engaging and retaining youth in continuing care services § linking youth to additional services § reducing AOD use and problems

Who was eligible to participate in the study? § Adolescents admitted to residential treatment (ASAM Level 3 care) § Length of stay of 7 days or longer (not required to have a successful discharge) § Reside in one of our “aftercare target counties”

ACC Study Research Design Intervention N Intake Residential 3 mo after 6 mo after 9 mo after Treatment Plus Aftercare discharge from RT Assertive Continuing Care 102 O 0 TUCC+ACC O 3 O 6 O 9 Usual Continuing Care 81 O 0 TUCC O 3 O 6 O 9 Note O = participant interview T = treatment No line between rows means randomization

Core Measures § GAIN-I and GAIN M 90 § Form 90 TLFB § BAC and Urine tests § Collateral Assessment Form

Recruitment and Follow-up § 81% of eligible clients agreed to participate § 93% of all participants were interviewed at baseline, 3, 6, and 9 months § 96% of all follow-up interviews were completed within two weeks of due date

Demographic Characteristics

Baseline Substance Use Characteristics

Residential Treatment § Approach § Length of Stay § Average LOS - 49 days for both groups § 1 - 3 weeks: 25% ACC - 28% UCC § 4 -12 weeks: 68% ACC - 71% UCC § 13+ weeks: 6% ACC - 2% UCC § Rate of Successful Completion § 50% ACC - 53% UCC

Features of the Assertive Continuing Care Intervention § Home Visits § Sessions for patient, parents, and together § Sessions based on ACRA manual (Godley, Meyers et al. , 2001) § Case Management based on ACC manual (Godley et al, 2001) to assist with other issues (e. g. , job finding, medication evaluation)

Monitoring ACC Implementation § Weekly Case Review Tracking Form § Therapist Skillfulness Rating Form § Procedure checklists completed independently by therapist and supervisor § 100% of sessions taped until certification

Monitoring Implementation § Simple monitoring systems work best § Monitor client contact and intervention procedures § Monitor total caseload weekly § Weekly feedback on caseload

ACC Weekly Case Review CASE D/C No. Weeks Status/Date Status Date to Close in Tx FA#client #parent #together HS Use FA-PS GOC A AP 2/13/2001 E 5/8/2001 13 12 4 3 1 B AS 2/15/2001 D 5/10/2001 13 6 1 1 1 C AP 2/26/2001 E 5/21/2001 11 9 1 1 1 2 D AS 3/13/2001 E 6/5/2001 9 7 2 1 1 2 E AP 3/19/2001 E 6/11/2001 8 7 2 1 F AP 3/19/2001 E 6/11/2001 8 6 2 1 1 1 G AP 4/19/2001 N 7/12/2001 4 2 H AP 4/27/2001 N 7/20/2001 3 2 I AP 4/26/2001 N 7/19/2001 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1

Engagement & Retention § 94% of ACC vs. 54% of UCC group enrolled § ACC averaged 14. 1 aftercare sessions vs. 6. 3 sessions for the UCC group § ACC median sessions 10 compared to 2 for UCC group § No difference in average UCC sessions between groups § ACC significantly more likely to receive referrals to other human service providers

Weekly Tx Weekly 12 step meetings Relapse prevention* Communication skills training* Problem solving component* Regular urine tests Meet with parents 1 -2 x month* Weekly telephone contact* Contact w/ probation/school Referrals to other services* Follow up on referrals* Discuss probation/school compliance* Adherence: Meets 8/12 criteria* UCC ACC * p<. 05 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Results: Improved Adherence

Reduced Relapse: Marijuana 1. 0 Proportion Remaining Abstinent . 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4 ACC . 3. 2 UCC . 1 0. 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Days to First Marijuana Use p<. 05

Reduced Relapse: Alcohol Proportion Remaining Abstinent 1. 0. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3 ACC . 2 UCC . 1 0. 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 Days to First Alcohol Use (p<. 05) 180 210 240 270

Days of Alcohol Use (out of 90) 45 40 35 Days 30 25 ACC (N=93) UCC (N=76) 20 15 10 5 0 Pre-treatment ACC Phase Post ACC

Days of Marijuana Use (out of 90) 45 40 35 Days 30 25 ACC UCC 20 15 10 5 0 Pre-treatment ACC Phase Post ACC

Can Assertive Continuing Care (ACC) Help “Unmotivated” Patients? Patients Remaining Abstinent 1. 0 0. 9 0. 8 0. 7 Assertive Continuing Care (n=96; 94% Attended CC) 0. 6 0. 5 0. 4 0. 3 Usual Continuing Care: Abstinent Attended CC (n=42) Did not attend CC (n=36) “Unmotivated” 0. 2 0. 1 Proportion Remaining 0. 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Days Since Residential Discharge 270 Godley et al. , 2004

Conclusions § Failure to link to CC is the norm in actual practice § For those who do link retention beyond 4 hours of service is less than 50% § ACC is clearly superior to UCC in linking and retaining youth in continuing care § ACC clients receive more referrals to ancillary services than UCC clients § ACC was significantly better in preventing relapse than UCC

Next Steps for Research § Additional research is necessary to further improve relapse prevention effectiveness § We need to test models of continuing care following outpatient treatment § We need to test ways of improving 12 step attendance among adolescents § We need to better address the co-occurring problems of adolescents § Research is needed to test longer term models of CC with adolescents-particularly decreasing levels of contact for monitoring, support, and reintervention

Contact Information Mark D. Godley, Ph. D. Chestnut Health Systems 720 W. Chestnut St. Bloomington, IL 61704 309. 827. 6026 ext. 3401 mgodley@chestnut. org www. chestnut. org

Introduction § Our Background § Experience with adolescents involved in residential and outpatient treatment § Is it Aftercare or Continuing Care?