Patient Assessments of the Factors Facilitating and Impeding User Involvement During the First Phase of Substance Abuse Treatment.

User involvement in the first phase of treatment is essential for treatment satisfaction among patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). This study explores how patients perceive the first phase of specialized SUD treatment and identifies what promotes and inhibits user involvement. We used a qualitative approach, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 informants admitted to a substance abuse treatment unit in central Norway. The analysis was inspired by a phenomenographical analysis approach, and 4 categories were identified as the core experiences of user involvement during the first phase of SUD treatment: (a) a new hold on life, (b) missing information, (c) the importance of a sense of community, and (d) ambivalence about the usefulness of the treatment. Overlapping elements with Aaron Antonovsky's theoretical framework of salutogenesis were used to support the main findings. The study indicates that activating personal resources (eg, the ability to envision a different life), conveying information in a matter sensitive to patients' current cognitive state, a sense of community, and therapeutic alliance are essential factors to promote user involvement in the first phase of specialized SUD treatment. Based on the findings, we suggest a salutogenesis approach to promote user involvement and provide several ways to employ this approach in the crucial first phase of specialized SUD treatment.

User involvement in interprofessional team meetings within services for substance use disorders.

Background: People with substance use disorders (SUD) and concurrent mental health disorders often need prolonged, coordinated health and welfare services. Interprofessional team meetings are designed to tailor services to users' needs and should be based on interprofessional collaboration involving the user. Aims: To investigate service users' experiences with interprofessional team meetings and to identify potential barriers to successful user involvement. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with five male service users aged 27-36 years with concurrent substance use and psychiatric disorders, and observations of team meetings involving both users and relevant professionals. Users were interviewed shortly after commencing treatment and after the team meeting. A phenomenographical approach framed the data analysis. Results: Users described the interprofessional team meetings as less than useful, and perceived that lack of a targeted process and of information hindered their collaboration with professionals. Observations revealed that users were given a subordinate role in the meetings, which largely undermined their involvement. Three categories reflecting lack of information as a core obstacle to user involvement emerged from the data material: (i) unclear role responsibilities and unclear professional role functions, (ii) unclear practices regarding rules and routines, and (iii) absence of user knowledge. Conclusions: User involvement in team meetings may be improved by facilitating adequate information, clarifying role expectations, emphasising user knowledge, increasing professionals' awareness of the importance of collaboration, and by teaching skills that enhance user involvement.

Relapse after inpatient substance use treatment: A prospective cohort study among users of illicit substances.

AIMS: The main aim was to investigate the relative roles of mental distress and intrinsic motivation for relapse after inpatient substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, while adjusting for demographics and treatment variables. METHODS: The study is based on a prospective multicenter study with a baseline gross sample of 607 patients with SUD (response rate = 84%) admitted to an inpatient stay at one of five specialized SUD treatment centers in Norway. The analytical sample consisted of patients with illicit drug use (n = 374) who took part in a follow-up interview three months after discharge from inpatient treatment (n = 249) (retention rate = 67%). Data were collected using information from electronic medical records, a self-report questionnaire at treatment entry, and a follow-up interview. RESULTS: Relapse occurred among 37% of the sample by three-month follow-up. Results of multivariable analysis showed that younger age and having a psychiatric diagnosis were associated with an elevated relapse risk. Patients who received treatment at a short-term clinic (2-4 months), as opposed to a long-term clinic (>6 months) were also at increased risk of relapse, regardless of their length of stay. Reduced risk of relapse was predicted by having completed the inpatient treatment stay. CONCLUSION: Identifying the treatment needs of young patients and patients with co-occurring psychiatric diagnoses during and following inpatient SUD treatment may contribute to reduced post-treatment relapse rates. Further research is needed to illuminate the treatment-related factors that contribute to reduced risk of relapse after inpatient SUD treatment.