Peer recovery support for individuals with substance use disorders: assessing the evidence.

In recent years, peer recovery support services have become an accepted part of the treatment of substance use disorders, providing a more extensive array of services than typically associated with mutual support groups. Peer providers may help consumers set recovery goals, develop a plan, and work toward and maintain recovery. In this literature review, the last in the Assessing the Evidence Base (AEB) Series, the authors review the evidence supporting peer recovery support services, noting that more research is needed to distinguish the effects of peer recovery support from other recovery support activities.

Residential treatment for individuals with substance use disorders: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Residential treatment is a commonly used direct intervention for individuals with substance use or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders who need structured care. Treatment occurs in nonhospital, licensed residential facilities. Models vary, but all provide safe housing and medical care in a 24-hour recovery environment. This article describes residential treatment and assesses the evidence base for this service. METHODS: Authors evaluated research reviews and individual studies from 1995 through 2012. They searched major databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts. They chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) and described the evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: On the basis of eight reviews and 21 individual studies not included in prior reviews, the level of evidence for residential treatment for substance use disorders was rated as moderate. A number of randomized controlled trials were identified, but various methodological weaknesses in study designs-primarily the appropriateness of the samples and equivalence of comparison groups-decreased the level of evidence. Results for the effectiveness of residential treatment compared with other types of treatment for substance use disorders were mixed. Findings suggested either an improvement or no difference in treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Residential treatment for substance use disorders shows value and merits ongoing consideration by policy makers for inclusion as a covered benefit in public and commercially funded plans. However, research with greater specificity and consistency is needed.

Substance abuse intensive outpatient programs: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Substance abuse intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) are direct services for people with substance use disorders or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders who do not require medical detoxification or 24-hour supervision. IOPs are alternatives to inpatient and residential treatment. They are designed to establish psychosocial supports and facilitate relapse management and coping strategies. This review assessed the evidence base for IOPs. METHODS: Authors searched major databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, ERIC, and CINAHL. They identified 12 individual studies and one review published between 1995 and 2012. They chose from three levels of research evidence (high, moderate, and low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: Based on the quality of trials, diversity of settings, and consistency of outcomes, the level of evidence for IOPs was rated high. Multiple randomized trials and naturalistic analyses that compared IOPs with inpatient or residential care found comparable outcomes. All studies reported reductions in alcohol and drug use. However, substantial variability in the operationalization of IOPs and outcome measures was apparent. CONCLUSIONS: IOPs are an important part of the continuum of care for substance use disorders. They are as effective as inpatient treatment for most individuals. Public and commercial health plans should consider IOP services as a covered health benefit. Standardization of the elements included in IOPs may improve their quality and effectiveness.

Consumer and family psychoeducation: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Psychoeducation provides adult consumers who have serious mental illness or co-occurring substance use disorders with information to support recovery. Some models also provide this service to family members. This review examined the evidence base for psychoeducation models in group and individual formats. METHODS: Authors reviewed meta-analyses, research reviews, and individual studies from 1995 through 2012. Databases surveyed were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, the Educational Resources Information Center, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Authors chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) on the basis of benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described service effectiveness. RESULTS: More than 30 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of consumer psychoeducation and more than 100 RCTs of family psychoeducation provide a high level of evidence for the effectiveness of each model. Reviews of consumer psychoeducation found that experimental groups had reduced nonadherence (primarily with medication regimens), fewer relapses, and reduced hospitalization rates compared with control groups. Some studies found significant improvements in social and global functioning, consumer satisfaction, and quality of life. Multifamily psychoeducation groups (the focus of numerous studies) were associated with significantly improved problem-solving ability and a reduced burden on families, compared with control groups, among other strong outcome effects. CONCLUSIONS: Psychoeducation should be included in covered services. Group and family interventions are especially powerful. Future research should assess psychoeducation models with children and adolescents and with individuals from various racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Supported employment: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Supported employment is a direct service with multiple components designed to help adults with mental disorders or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders choose, acquire, and maintain competitive employment. This article describes supported employment and assesses the evidence base for this service. METHODS: Authors reviewed meta-analyses, research reviews, and individual studies from 1995 through 2012. Databases surveyed were PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, the Educational Resources Information Center, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Authors chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, and low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence for service effectiveness. RESULTS: The level of research evidence for supported employment was graded as high, based on 12 systematic reviews and 17 randomized controlled trials of the individual placement and support model. Supported employment consistently demonstrated positive outcomes for individuals with mental disorders, including higher rates of competitive employment, fewer days to the first competitive job, more hours and weeks worked, and higher wages. There was also strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of individual elements of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of supported employment. Policy makers should consider including it as a covered service. Future research is needed for subgroups such as young adults, older adults, people with primary substance use disorders, and those from various cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds.

Recovery housing: assessing the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Recovery housing is a direct service with multiple components that provides supervised, short-term housing to individuals with substance use disorders or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. It commonly is used after inpatient or residential treatment. This article describes recovery housing and assesses the evidence base for the service. METHODS: Authors searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts. They identified six individual articles from 1995 through 2012 that reported on randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies; no reviews or meta-analyses were found. They chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, or low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of service effectiveness. RESULTS: The level of evidence for recovery housing was moderate. Studies consistently showed positive outcomes, but the results were tempered by research design limitations, such as lack of consistency in defining the program elements and outcome measures, small samples, and single-site evaluations, and by the limited number of studies. Results on the effectiveness of recovery housing suggested positive substance use outcomes and improvements in functioning, including employment and criminal activity. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery housing appears to be an important component in the continuum of care for some individuals. However, replication of study findings with greater specificity and in more settings is needed.