Special Article
A Randomized Trial of Treatment Options for Alcohol-Abusing Workers
N Engl J Med 1991; 325:775-782September 12, 1991
- Abstract
- Abstract
Background.
Employee-assistance programs sponsored by companies or labor unions identify workers who abuse alcohol and refer them for care, often to inpatient rehabilitation programs. Yet the effectiveness of inpatient treatment, as compared with a variety of less intensive alternatives, has repeatedly been called into question. In this study, anchored in the work site, we compared the effectiveness of mandatory in-hospital treatment with that of required attendance at the meetings of a self-help group and a choice of treatment options.
Methods.
We randomly assigned a series of 227 workers newly identified as abusing alcohol to one of three rehabilitation regimens: compulsory inpatient treatment, compulsory attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, and a choice of options. Inpatient backup was provided if needed. The groups were compared in terms of 12 job-performance variables and 12 measures of drinking and drug use during a two-year follow-up period.
Results.
All three groups improved, and no significant differences were found among the groups in job-related outcome variables. On seven measures of drinking and drug use, however, we found significant differences at several follow-up assessments. The hospital group fared best and that assigned to AA the least well; those allowed to choose a program had intermediate outcomes. Additional inpatient treatment was required significantly more often (P<0.0001) by the AA group (63 percent) and the choice group (38 percent) than by subjects assigned to initial treatment in the hospital (23 percent). The differences among the groups were especially pronounced for workers who had used cocaine within six months before study entry. The estimated costs of inpatient treatment for the AA and choice groups averaged only 10 percent less than the costs for the hospital group because of their higher rates of additional treatment.
Conclusions.
Even for employed problem drinkers who are not abusing drugs and who have no serious medical problems, an initial referral to AA alone or a choice of programs, although less costly than inpatient care, involves more risk than compulsory inpatient treatment and should be accompanied by close monitoring for signs of incipient relapse. (N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 775–82.)
Article Activity
- Article
THE field of alcoholism treatment has long been divided over how much treatment is enough and over whether and when inpatient care is justified to supervise withdrawal from alcohol1 or manage alcohol dependence.2 , 3 Studies comparing inpatient treatment with various alternatives (such as outpatient treatment,4 partial hospitalization,5 and treatment in day-clinic settings6) have seldom found differences in outcome. Government and private panels7 8 9 10 and several academic reviewers11 , 12 have concluded that the cost effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation still awaits compelling empirical justification.
Meanwhile, the number of inpatient rehabilitation programs for people with alcoholism has increased sharply.9 Insurance plans cover inpatient treatment preferentially, but with increasing restrictions on admissions and lengths of stay. Employers, newly conscripted into the federal government's "war on drugs,"13 remain uncertain about their policies toward the rehabilitation of employees who have problems with alcohol, other drugs, or both.14
Among the forces driving the expansion of inpatient treatment for alcoholism, the rapid growth of company-sponsored employee-assistance programs has been pivotal.15 The staffs of such programs identify and assess employees' drinking problems and other problems with coping, make referrals for care, and sometimes oversee follow-up care.16 Because they are able to back up their referrals with the implicit threat of job loss, employee-assistance programs create distinct incentives for patients to enter treatment for alcoholism.17
Previous investigations have posed the question of how much alcoholism treatment is enough. In this study we examined the question at an industrial plant with 10,000 workers. We randomly assigned clients of an employee-assistance program who were newly identified as abusing alcohol to one of three alcoholism-rehabilitation regimens. The first began with a period of mandatory inpatient rehabilitation, the second began with mandatory attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, and the third gave the subjects a choice of treatment options, with nondirective advice from the administrators of the employee-assistance program. Employees in all three groups were monitored by the company for a probationary year. In this study we tracked them for a total of two years. Additional inpatient treatment was offered to employees whom the staff of the program judged to be having enough trouble with their drinking, after the randomly assigned referral, to be in immediate jeopardy of losing their jobs. The three treatment strategies were fundamentally different in their philosophies, in their anticipated costs, and in the manner in which and the degree to which they intruded on the workers' lives. The subjects in the three groups were compared in terms of 12 measures of job performance and 12 measures of drinking and drug use; data were collected over a two-year period beginning with the date of study entry (intake).
Methods
Recruitment, Assessment of Eligibility, and Randomization
Subjects were recruited for the study as they entered the employee-assistance program with an alcohol problem that was interfering with their work. To be eligible, a candidate was required to be new to the employee-assistance program (even if he or she had previously been treated elsewhere), to have alcohol abuse as the primary problem, and to fall within a "gray zone" in which the company and union, relying on established exclusion criteria, were uncertain whether hospitalization was the appropriate treatment.
Employees were excluded from the study and referred directly to a hospital if they required medically supervised detoxification (because they had a blood alcohol concentration ≥0.2 [43 mmol per liter, or 2.0 g per liter], a definite, recent history of delirium tremens or grand mal seizures during alcohol withdrawal, or clear signs and symptoms suggesting the imminent onset of delirium tremens); if they required medical attention for a serious illness; if they posed an immediate danger to themselves or to others; if they needed psychiatric care for delusions or other gross impairments of mood, language, memory, or perception of reality; or if they would be difficult to follow up because they were about to be jailed or fired. The research and program staffs met monthly to review judgments about eligibility and to monitor compliance with the protocol.
Between February 1, 1982, and June 30, 1987, every newly identified alcohol-abusing employee who came to the attention of the employee-assistance program before being hospitalized was screened for eligibility. Of these 371 employees, 128 (35 percent) were ineligible according to the exclusion criteria; the remaining 243 (65 percent) were escorted by a member of the employee-assistance-program staff to an interview with one of the study personnel, who administered an alcohol breath test to ascertain the worker's eligibility (blood alcohol concentration <0.2 [43 mmol per liter, or 2.0 g per liter]) and competence to give informed consent and to confirm the reliability of self-reported data (blood alcohol concentration <0.1 [22 mmol per liter, or 1.0 g per liter])18; if these criteria were met, written informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.
Altogether, 227 subjects (93 percent of all those eligible) consented to participate and were randomly assigned to treatment groups. Both interviewers and subjects were blinded to group assignment during intake. The staff of the employee-assistance program told clients about their referral assignments. This separation between research and program staffs reinforced the policy that nothing revealed in the study interviews would affect treatment or job decisions.
Rehabilitation Strategies
Of the 227 subjects, the 73 assigned to "compulsory hospitalization" were required to undergo inpatient treatment of about three weeks' duration. Nine refused hospitalization and were continued for purposes of analysis in the hospital group. For the remainder, the average length of stay at the 10 hospitals (of which 2 accounted for 86 percent of the hospital assignments) was 23 days. The participating hospitals described their programs in similar terms, were accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, held AA meetings at the hospital, and cited abstinence as the goal of treatment. The hospital stay was followed by a year of job probation, during which attendance at AA meetings on a regular basis (at least three times a week), sobriety at work, and weekly checks with the employee-assistance-program staff were required.
The 83 subjects assigned to "compulsory AA only" were referred and offered an escort to a local meeting of AA, which they were advised to continue attending — daily, if possible, but not less than three times a week — for at least a year. They were treated in the same way as subjects in the hospital group for the year after discharge.
The third treatment option — referred to as "choice" — was one that involved the subjects in the planning of their treatment; such involvement could theoretically influence outcome if choice enhances the subject's sense of "self-efficacy,"19 facilitates the appropriate matching of subjects to treatment,20 or both. The subjects randomly assigned to a choice of treatments were not required to join AA or enter a hospital, although the staff of the employee-assistance program sometimes encouraged them to do one or the other, and were free to elect no treatment, as long as they remained sober on the job, performed acceptably, and checked in weekly with the employee-assistance program. Of the 71 subjects in the choice group, 29 elected hospitalization in a total of five hospitals (average length of stay, 24.5 days), 33 went directly to AA, 3 chose outpatient psychotherapy (with a social worker, a psychiatrist, or a marriage counselor), and 6 opted for no organized help at all.
All three treatment protocols authorized the staff of the employee-assistance program to recommend supplementary hospital treatment for a participant who was not succeeding with his or her randomly assigned treatment; such decisions were made on the basis of data collected by the program (not study data). The criteria for the additional treatment, specified in advance, were intoxication at work or a pattern of unexcused absenteeism in combination with imminent job termination for alcohol-related infringements of company policy and rules. Subjects who underwent additional treatment were retained for purposes of analysis in their original treatment groups, and the reasons for additional treatment were monitored in regular monthly meetings of the research and program staffs.
Data Collection
Subjects were interviewed at study entry and 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months thereafter. Three interviews each were scheduled with job supervisors and spouses or close friends or relatives, when possible. At intake, 201 supervisors and 61 spouses or others were interviewed; after one year, 162 and 44, respectively, were interviewed; and after two years, 111 and 32. The trained research interviewers were independent of the staff of the employee-assistance program and unaware of the subjects' group assignment.
Intake
A structured, face-to-face, 90-minute intake interview was used to obtain data on descriptive characteristics of the subjects and to establish base-line values for dependent variables. Included were a lifetime history of drinking (covering volume, variability, and problems) and a history of previous treatment. Base-line status was determined for the following covariates: job, family, and health histories; circumstances and sources of stress, support, and satisfaction; current and past use of prescription and street drugs and cigarettes; and diet, weight, and exercise. Drinking practices and associated problems were catalogued, and the subjects were located on diagnostic scales. For alcoholism, these included the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST),21 the Iowa Stages Index,22 and the Rand drinking-symptoms checklist,23 which codifies diagnostic criteria developed by the National Council on Alcoholism.24
Coexisting medical and psychological disorders were assessed through the subjects' reports, with the use of sections of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule of the National Institute of Mental Health25 and the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Menial Disorders, third edition (DSM-III),26 to identify physical and psychological symptoms and the alcohol dependence syndrome, and the Depressive Symptomatology Scale of the Center for Epidemiological Studies (CES-D)27 to measure depressed mood and related dysfunction in the previous week.
Intake interviews with supervisors and spouses or others focused on the subjects' level of functioning and drinking at work and at home. Job supervisors were asked to rate the subjects' performance, both overall and in terms of specific variables, in the past year and past month, to report disciplinary actions taken, and to report any evidence of drinking or intoxication on the job. Spouses, relatives, or friends reported on the quality of marital and other interpersonal and parenting relations, estimated the volume and variability of the subjects' drinking, and described their own alcohol use.
Follow-up
Follow-up interviews focused on dependent variables and selected covariates; items and scales from the intake interview were used. Archival data were collected from the records of the employee-assistance program and the hospital, insurance-carrier claims files, and a computerized payroll system maintained at the plant. As Table 1Table 1.
Outcome Measures. shows, we divided outcome variables into indicators of treatment effects related to job performance and those related to drinking and drug use.Statistical Analysis
The cardinal job-related outcome variable studied was the length of time to being fired for unacceptable performance; life-table survival analyses28 and proportional-hazards models29 were used to evaluate this variable. Other job outcomes were assessed with use of the chi-square test for categorical variables and analysis of variance for continuous outcome measures. We included data collected at each of five follow-up interviews (those at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months), omitting the 1-month interview because subjects in the hospital group spent most of that period off the job and away from alcohol.
Among drinking-related outcomes, the length of time to hospitalization for supplementary treatment of uncontrolled drinking was evaluated with use of life-table survival analyses and proportional-hazards models. Self-reported measures of drinking, also obtained at each of the five follow-up interviews included in the analysis, were first assessed with the chi-square test and analysis of variance. We then controlled for covariates in stepwise multiple-regression analyses — logistic for categorical dependent variables (any drunkenness, blackouts, binges, serious symptoms, cocaine use, and definite alcoholism), and linear for continuous outcome measures (the Iowa and Rand indexes and the average daily number of drinks). Next, we conducted repeated-measures analyses of variance on self-reported drinking measures and evaluated the effects of time, group, and time-by-group interactions. Finally, we compared groups in terms of the set of drinking measures simultaneously, using multivariate analysis of variance.
Results
The Sample
The majority of the subjects were men (96 percent), were in their 30s (mean age, 33 years), were white (90 percent), and were blue-collar workers in skilled and semiskilled jobs. (A table summarizing the characteristics of the subjects at intake according to treatment group is available elsewhere.*) The subjects were drinking heavily, and all had many alcohol-related problems. They averaged 6.3 drinks a day and 19.8 drinking days in the month preceding the interview; 21 percent had been drunk daily and another 45 percent weekly during the previous month; 24 percent reported at least one binge in the previous six months, and 25 percent three or more blackouts. More than 90 percent were scored as "alcoholic" on the SMAST, 77 percent were scored as "definitely alcoholic" on the Rand behavioral-impairment index, 57 percent were classified as late- or very-late-stage alcoholics on the Iowa Stages Index, and 56 percent were rated "alcohol dependent" according to the DSM-III criteria. Over half had been arrested at least once for driving while intoxicated, and 41 percent for other drinking-related offenses. Three quarters were current smokers and two thirds reported use of other drugs in the past six months, mostly marijuana (59 percent), cocaine (39 percent), or both; 30 percent of all subjects and half the cocaine users said they had had a "drug problem" at some time. Thirteen percent reported alcohol-related medical problems in the previous year. The subjects' mean score of 26.7 on the CES-D indicated clinically meaningful levels of current depressive symptoms.
*See NAPS document no. 04888 for eight pages of supplementary material. Order from NAPS c/o Microfiche Publications, P.O. Box 3513, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163–3513. Remit in advance (in U.S. funds only) $7.75 for photocopies or $4 for microfiche. Outside the U.S. and Canada add postage of $4.50 ($1.50 for microfiche postage). There is a $15 invoicing charge on all orders filled before payment.
To assess whether the randomization process produced similar groups, we compared the three groups in terms of more than 60 base-line characteristics that might affect study outcomes. The two significant differences among the groups could have occurred by chance alone: subjects randomly assigned to hospital treatment were the most likely and those in the choice group were the least likely to be divorced or separated and to report drinking in spite of illness. Controlling for these differences in no way altered the overall results.
Attrition
We followed up all 227 enrollees in terms of company-documented outcomes in the areas of job performance (time to termination) and drinking (time to additional treatment). Ten subjects were lost to follow-up by interview from the hospital group (14 percent), 10 from the AA group (12 percent), and 7 from the choice group (10 percent); these differences were not significant. The lowest percentage of subjects included at any of the follow-up interviews was 84 percent. When the 27 subjects lost to follow-up were analyzed according to group, there was a significant difference in only one of the more than 60 intake variables. The subjects lost to follow-up from the hospital group were significantly more depressed (mean CES-D score, 29.8) than those lost from the AA group (19.6) or the choice group (19.7; P = 0.02). The base-line depression score was not found to be a significant predictor of treatment outcome in multiple regression analyses. Three subjects died during the two-year follow-up period, two in the hospital group (one by homicide and one by suicide) and one in the AA group (of a heart attack).
Job Outcomes
Altogether, 31 subjects were fired during the two-year follow-up period: 13 percent of the AA group, 17 percent of the choice group, and 11 percent of the hospital group; log-rank tests indicated no significant differences among the groups. The subjects in all three groups showed substantial and sustained improvement in all aspects of job functioning. (Additional data on drinking-related and job-related outcome measures are available elsewhere.*) Less than 15 percent reported job problems at the 24-month follow-up, and 76 percent of the supervisors interviewed at that time rated the subjects' job performance "good" (42 percent) or "excellent" (34 percent). The proportions with warning notices dropped from 33 percent at intake to under 2 percent at months 3 and 6 and stayed under 5 percent thereafter. The number of hours recorded by the company as missed from work dropped by more than a third in all the groups when we compared the six months before intake with the last six months of follow-up two years later. On none of our 12 job outcomes did we find any significant differences among the groups, nor did we find any in pairwise group comparisons, at any follow-up point. Logistic-regression analyses on a composite index of job problems yielded no significant effects of group assignment.
*See NAPS document no. 04888 for eight pages of supplementary material. Order from NAPS c/o Microfiche Publications, P.O. Box 3513, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163–3513. Remit in advance (in U.S. funds only) $7.75 for photocopies or $4 for microfiche. Outside the U.S. and Canada add postage of $4.50 ($1.50 for microfiche postage). There is a $15 invoicing charge on all orders filled before payment.
Drinking Outcomes
A total of 46 subjects (23 percent) reported an unbroken record of abstinence from alcohol at every follow-up interview during the 24 months of the study. All three groups had substantial and fairly stable improvement on all 11 of the self-reported measures of drinking (Table 1), with some deterioration over time. On four of the measures of drinking (mean number of daily drinks, number of drinking days per month, binges, and serious symptoms), we found no significant differences among the three groups at any follow-up point.
On the remaining eight measures of drinking and drug use (any drinking, intoxication, blackouts, Iowa stage, Rand impairment score, definite alcoholism, cocaine use, and time to additional treatment), however, there were statistically significant differences among the three groups at one to four follow-up points. In terms of all but two of these measures, the hospital group had the fewest problems (in terms of Iowa stage at months 12 and 24 and cocaine use at month 18, the choice group had the fewest problems). On most, the compulsory AA group did the least well. In two-way comparisons, the choice group did significantly less well than the hospital group in terms of six of the measures of drinking at one or more follow-up points. The hospital group was significantly more likely to include continuous abstainers (37 percent vs. 17 percent for the choice group and 16 percent for AA only). Figure 1Figure 1
Rates of Continuous Abstinence from Drinking, According to Treatment Group, during 24 Months of Follow-up. shows the cumulative rates of abstinence from drinking according to treatment group, and Figure 2Figure 2
Rates of Continuous Sobriety, According to Treatment Group, during 24 Months of Follow-up. shows the cumulative proportion of subjects who were never intoxicated during follow-up; the differences among the groups were statistically significant (P = 0.002). At the 12-month and 24-month assessments, the rates of AA affiliation and attendance in the past 6 months did not differ significantly among the groups.Figure 3Figure 3
Time to Hospitalization for Additional Treatment, According to Treatment Group. shows the cumulative proportion of subjects who did not require hospitalization for additional treatment, according to initial treatment assignment. Of the 227 subjects randomly assigned, 42 percent were hospitalized for additional treatment: -rcent of the hospital group, 38 percent of the choice group, and 63 percent of the AA group. The log-rank test confirmed that these differences were significant (P = 0.0001). We conducted a number of specific analyses and detected no systematic bias in t-ferrals for additional treatment.Other Drugs and Group Outcomes
The compulsory AA group fared least well overall. In addition, patients who were abusing c- together with alcohol, did especially poorly in the AA group (a few went to Narcotics Anonymous [NA]). Cocaine use in the past six months was reported at intake by 90 subjects.30 Outcomes differed according to treatment assignment for the 78 of these 90 cocaine users who were followed for two years: the 22 assigned to the hospital group were significantly more likely, at every follow-up assessment, to be abstaining from alcohol than those assigned to the other groups, were less likely to report episodes of intoxication, and were found to be less impaired on the Iowa and Rand scales at three and six months. The 30 cocaine users who were assigned to the AA group had the most evidence of problems on these measures of drinking, and they were the most likely, at every follow-up assessment, to report the continued use of cocaine; this difference was significant (P = 0.002) at 18 months, notwithstanding the small numbers (17 cocaine users in the AA group, 5 in the hospital group, and 4 in the choice group).
As a reflection of their more serious problems, the subjects who reported at intake that they had used cocaine in the past 6 months were significantly more severely impaired than the others at the 24-month interview, and they were significantly more likely to have been hospitalized for additional treatment. As Table 2Table 2
Outcome Measures at 24 Months for Cocaine Users, According to Treatment Group. shows, this likelihood varied according to group; of the cocaine-using subjects in the hospital and choice groups, less than 30 percent underwent additional inpatient treatment, as compared with 63 percent of the cocaine users randomly assigned to AA alone.Costs of Treatment
Table 3Table 3
Hospital Days and Estimated Costs of In-Hospital Treatment for Alcoholism, According to Treatment Group. shows estimates of the costs of inpatient alcoholism treatment for the three study groups and for the hospital and AA subgroups of the choice arm, assuming inpatient costs of $400 per day. This analysis included not only the first additional treatment (which appears in Fig. 3), but all subsequent inpatient days for treatment of alcoholism during the two years of follow-up. It did not take account of time lost from work, outpatient treatment, and other costs beyond hospital days.When we compared the costs of treatment for the AA and hospital groups, we found that the costs for the AA group averaged $1,200 less per person, a saving of just 10 percent. Even though the initial referral to AA was free, the AA group had much higher rates of additional treatment; 63 percent of subjects randomly assigned to AA eventually required hospitalization. The average cost for the choice group was almost identical to that for the AA group, because more subjects in that group than in the hospital group ultimately needed additional inpatient treatment.
Discussion
Employees who had serious problems with alcohol improved materially, in terms of both drinking behavior and job performance, in the months after an intervention at the workplace. At the exit interview two years after intake, 41 percent said they were abstaining entirely from alcohol, and 23 percent had reported continuous abstention at each of five interim checkpoints. Subjects' own reports of abstention are, of course, somewhat suspect,31 but our findings are supported by the fact that the supervisors or spouses (or other close relatives or friends) of self-reported abstainers confirmed their accounts in 85 percent of the cases.
By the end of the study, daily drinking volume (averaged for all the subjects, including abstainers) had dropped from 6.3 to 1.5 drinks and the average number of drinking days in the month before the interview had dropped from 19.8 to 3.1. The proportion classified as definitely alcoholic on the Rand index dropped from 77 percent to 11 percent, that classified as alcohol-dependent according to the DSM-III criteria fell from 56 percent to 14 percent, and the rate of binge drinking was reduced from 24 percent to 6 percent.
Job problems diminished markedly and, despite a tendency of the subjects to regress, never returned to the levels before the intervention. The proportion reporting job problems ranged from 12 percent to 35 percent at intake and had dropped to less than 12 percent or much lower on all indicators at three months. The rates rose gradually thereafter but never again exceeded 12 percent for any job problem, even a full two years after intake. Supervisors' evaluations and formal payroll records substantiated the pattern of improved performance and attendance at work.
We found no differences among the three groups in any job outcome, including being fired. All three groups evidently brought their drinking problems under sufficient control at work for group differences in job performance to be rendered statistically insignificant. But compulsory hospitalization with AA follow-up addressed drinking problems significantly more effectively than did compulsory AA alone. The results of choice were intermediate between the two. The relatively low rate of relapse in the hospital group was an unexpected finding.
This study had limitations that should be borne in mind. First, a larger sample would have bolstered our confidence in the absence of differences in job outcomes and permitted fuller investigation of differences among subgroups of the choice group and of interactions between subjects and treatments. Second, because the study spanned seven years, a cohort effect in the workers enrolled and in historical events might have influenced the outcomes. The randomization process should have distributed these influences evenly among the three groups, and in several analyses we found scant evidence of cohort effects at follow-up. Third, the reliability of self-reported data on drinking behavior is always a concern in the absence of physiologic validation of drinking status.32 We had independent accounts from supervisors and spouses or friends when available, as well as administrative records of absenteeism and use of medical care. These provided some validation of the subjects' reports and some assurance that the rates of underreporting did not differ among the groups. Fourth, there was almost certainly some variability in the quality of care rendered in the 10 participating hospitals and some diversity among the many local AA groups involved. Our goal was to compare three distinct referral strategies and not to monitor the specific content of care in great detail. The one-month treatment interviews showed that the hospitalized patients received a fairly homogeneous package of therapeutic interventions, and we found no significant differences in any measures of drinking when we compared the two principal hospitals to one another and to the remaining eight combined.
The generalizability of these results may also be somewhat limited. The sample was a white, working-class, largely male population working in heavy industry, performing skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled work for a unionized New England plant of a very large American firm. We followed the subjects for two years, but the initial differences among the groups could erode with time. Finally, it should be underscored that our finding that AA alone was less effective than hospitalization followed by AA is specific to an employment setting where the compulsory referral to AA, or even its selection from a menu of alternatives, occurred against a backdrop of threatened job loss if drinking continued. Motivation in such circumstances may be very different from that of a drinker who enters the "fellowship" voluntarily, although some element of coercion or crisis often precipitates attendance at AA meetings.33
Balancing its limitations, the study had important strengths, and we can say with considerable confidence that, all things considered (and contrary to our expectations), the higher-cost inpatient intervention produced superior results, even when we controlled for cocaine use at intake in multiple regression analyses. To a company or union counselor or a clinician advising patients, our findings argue for hospitalizing problem drinkers who are also using cocaine or other drugs. For other problem drinkers with reasonable job stability and no serious medical needs, an initial referral to AA (or the offer of a choice of treatment) is somewhat less costly (about 10 percent), but it entails extra risk. Employees sent only to AA, and those offered choices, are more likely to have their drinking problems resurface. The less costly intervention may be more efficient in the longer term if the money saved is spent to identify and refer more substance-abusing employees or if nonhospital options encourage seeking help. But if AA alone is mandated, or if choice is offered, our study shows that close monitoring is essential, because many employees have serious relapses in the first six months.
This study raises questions about the continuation of employees recovering from alcoholism in jobs where safety is a factor, since drinking problems reappear before job problems do. How companies should resolve this issue remains a topic for future research, but close monitoring is certainly warranted during at least the first year of any employee's recovery process.
Alternatives to the hospital other than AA need to be evaluated systematically. Structured outpatient programs, case management, and matching strategies might make it safer to use inpatient treatment as a last resort, but these possibilities remain to be tested. Finally, this study demonstrates the feasibility of conducting tightly controlled trials to address unanswered questions about managing substance abuse at work. Randomization can be acceptable to both organizational decision makers and subjects themselves. Once cooperation is secured, the focus on the work setting may facilitate successful follow-up, which is often a difficult task in alcohol-related research.
Supported by a grant (ROI AA06461) from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, by the Commonwealth Fund, and by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
We are indebted to Thomas W. Moloney and Margaret Mahoney, of the Commonwealth Fund, for the original idea for this study and for crucial start-up funds; to Robert H. Ebert, M.D., Thomas Delbanco, M.D., Mark Aronson, M.D., Leon Eisenberg, M.D., Richard H. Egdahl, M.D., Ph.D., Norman A. Scotch, Ph.D., Ernestine Vanderveen, Ph.D., Richard Fuller, M.D., Barbara McCrady, Ph.D., and Saul Milles, M.D., who provided helpful advice at critical junctures; to Peter DiCicco, who arranged access to the study site and was always available with wise counsel; to the host firm, the General Electric Company, and the International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, Local 201 and District Council II, for their extraordinary assistance; to the staff at Baldpate Hospital and Seminole Point Hospital; and to Peter Tremblay, Ronald O'Leary, Frank Sullo, Laurin Rancourt, Kevin Mahar, Al McQuarrie, Leo Alphonsi, Dave Hyatt, and the many workers whose collaboration made this study possible.
Source Information
From the Harvard School of Public Health (D.C.W.); the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department (D.C.W., R.W.H., D.M.M.), the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Department (L.A.C., T.H.), and the Data Coordinating Center (S.M.L., G.A.C., C.A.B., T.A.B.), Boston University School of Public Health; and the Health Policy Institute (S.K.H.) and the Economics Department (T.G.M.), Boston University; all in Boston. Mr. Kelly is the retired administrator of the employee-assistance program at the General Electric Company, Lynn, Mass. Address reprint requests to Dr. Walsh at the Department of Health and Social Behavior, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115.
- References
References
1
Hayashida
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
Edwards
Web of Science | Medline3
Chapman
CrossRef | Medline4
Wanberg 5
Longabaugh
Web of Science | Medline6
McLachlan
Web of Science | Medline7
Office of Technology Assessment. The effectiveness and costs of alcoholism treatment. Health technology case study 22. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment, 1983. (SUDOC no. Y3.T 22/2iC 82/2/case 22.)
8
Institute of Medicine. Prevention and treatment of alcohol problems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989.
9
Idem. Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990.
10
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Seventh special report to the U.S. Congress on alcohol and health. Washington, D.C.: Public Health Service, 1990. (DHHS publication no. (ADM) 90–1656.)
11
Miller
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Emrick
Web of Science | Medline13
Office of National Drug Control Policy. National drug control strategy. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, 1990. (SUDOC no. PrEx 1.2:D 84/990.)
14
Walsh
Medline15
Roman PM. Growth and transformation in workplace alcoholism programming. In: Galanter M, ed. Recent developments in alcoholism. Vol. 6. New York: Plenum Press, 1988:131–58.
16
Walsh
CrossRef17
Trice
Web of Science | Medline18
O'Farrell
CrossRef | Web of Science19
Wilson
CrossRef | Medline20
Miller WR. Matching individuals with interventions. In: Hester RK, Miller WR, eds. Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: effective alternatives. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press, 1989:261–71.
21
Selzer
Web of Science | Medline22
Mulford
Web of Science | Medline23
Armor DJ, Polich JM, Stambul HB. Alcoholism and treatment. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1976.
24
National Council on Alcoholism 25
National Institute of Mental Health. Diagnostic interviewing schedule. Bethesda, Md.: National Institute of Mental Health, 1982.
26
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1980:163–79.
27
Radloff
CrossRef28
Kaplan
CrossRef | Web of Science29
Lawless JF. Statistical models and methods for lifetime data. New York: John Wiley, 1982:52–81, 343–95, 412–27.
30
Walsh
Web of Science | Medline31
Midanik
CrossRef | Medline32
Smith
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline33
Weisner CM. Coercion in alcohol treatment. In: Institute of Medicine. Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990:579–609.
- Citing Articles (91)
Citing Articles
1
Sterling T. Shumway, Thomas G. Kimball, John B. Dakin, Amanda K. Baker, Kitty S. Harris. (2011) Multifamily Groups in Recovery: A Revised Multifamily Curriculum. Journal of Family Psychotherapy 22:3, 247-264
CrossRef2
Richard M. Weiss. (2010) Brinksmanship Redux: Employee Assistance Programs’ Precursors and Prospects. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 22:4, 325-343
CrossRef3
Norman S. Miller, Mark S. Gold. 2010. Addictive Disorders as an Integral Part of the Practice of Medicine. , 1-13.
CrossRef4
Yu Ye, Lee Ann Kaskutas. (2009) Using propensity scores to adjust for selection bias when assessing the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous in observational studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 104:1-2, 56-64
CrossRef5
Christine M. J. Snyder, Stephen A. Anderson. (2009) An Examination of Mandated Versus Voluntary Referral as a Determinant of Clinical Outcome. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 35:3, 278-292
CrossRef6
Sarah E. Zemore, Nina Mulia, Yu Ye, Guilherme Borges, Thomas K. Greenfield. (2009) Gender, acculturation, and other barriers to alcohol treatment utilization among Latinos in three National Alcohol Surveys. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 36:4, 446-456
CrossRef7
Lee Ann Kaskutas. (2009) Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science. Journal of Addictive Diseases 28:2, 145-157
CrossRef8
Filippo Passetti, Colin Drummond. 2009. Alcohol-Use Disorders - Treatment and Management. , 147-173.
CrossRef9
Sarah E. Zemore, Lee Ann Kaskutas. (2008) Services received and treatment outcomes in day-hospital and residential programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 35:3, 232-244
CrossRef10
Keith Humphreys, Rudolf H. Moos. (2007) Encouraging Posttreatment Self-Help Group Involvement to Reduce Demand for Continuing Care Services: Two-Year Clinical and Utilization Outcomes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 31:1, 64-68
CrossRef11
John C.M. Brust. 2007. Éthanol. , 385-516.
CrossRef12
Adam J. Rose, Melissa R. Stein, Julia H. Arnsten, Richard Saitz. (2006) Teaching Internal Medicine Resident Physicians About Alcoholics Anonymous. Substance Abuse 27:3, 5-11
CrossRef13
Marica Ferri, Laura Amato, Marina Davoli, Marica Ferri. 2006. Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence. .
CrossRef14
(2006) The trials of Alcoholics Anonymous. Addiction 101:5, 617-618
CrossRef15
Alexandre B. Laudet, Keith Morgen, William L. White. (2006) The Role of Social Supports, Spirituality, Religiousness, Life Meaning and Affiliation with 12-Step Fellowships in Quality of Life Satisfaction Among Individuals in Recovery from Alcohol and Drug Problems. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 24:1-2, 33-73
CrossRef16
B. T. Baune, V. Arolt. (2005) Psychiatrische Epidemiologie und Bevölkerungsmedizin. Der Nervenarzt 76:5, 633-646
CrossRef17
Matilde P. Machado. (2005) Substance abuse treatment, what do we know?. The European Journal of Health Economics 6:1, 53-64
CrossRef18
Saitz, Richard, . (2005) Unhealthy Alcohol Use. New England Journal of Medicine 352:6, 596-607
Full Text19
Robin Room, Thomas Babor, Jürgen Rehm. (2005) Alcohol and public health. The Lancet 365:9458, 519-530
CrossRef20
Tho Bella Dinh-Zarr, Cynthia W Goss, Elizabeth Heitman, Ian G Roberts, Carolyn DiGuiseppi, Tho Bella Dinh-Zarr. 2004. Interventions for preventing injuries in problem drinkers. .
CrossRef21
Robert L. Kane, Melanie Wall, Sandra Potthoff, Kurt Stromberg, Yu Dai, Zachary J. Meyer. (2004) The Effect of Alcoholism Treatment on Medical Care Use. Medical Care 42:4, 395-402
CrossRef22
Keith Humphreys, Stephen Wing, Dennis McCarty, John Chappel, Lewi Gallant, Beverly Haberle, A.Thomas Horvath, Lee Ann Kaskutas, Thomas Kirk, Daniel Kivlahan, Alexandre Laudet, Barbara S. McCrady, A.Thomas McLellan, Jon Morgenstern, Mike Townsend, Roger Weiss. (2004) Self-help organizations for alcohol and drug problems: Toward evidence-based practice and policy. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 26:3, 151-158
CrossRef23
Melanie M Wall, Kurt D Stromberg, Sandra Pothoff, Robert L Kane. (2004) Alcoholism treatment episodes validly defined using mental health care utilization records. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 57:4, 373-380
CrossRef24
Ashwin A. Patkar, Charles C. Thornton, Paolo Mannelli, Kevin P. Hill, Edward Gottheil, Michael J. Vergare, Stephen P. Weinstein. (2004) Comparison of Pretreatment Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes for Alcohol-, Cocaine-, and Multisubstance-Dependent Patients. Journal of Addictive Diseases 23:1, 93-109
CrossRef25
Katharine A. Bradley, Daniel R. Kivlahan, Xiao-Hua Zhou, Jennifer L. Sporleder, Amee J. Epler, Kinsey A. McCormick, Joseph O. Merrill, Mary B. McDonell, Stephan D. Fihn. (2004) Using Alcohol Screening Results and Treatment History to Assess the Severity of At-Risk Drinking in Veterans Affairs Primary Care Patients. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research 28:3, 448-455
CrossRef26
Samuel A. McLean, Frederic C. Blow, Maureen A. Walton, Mary Ann Gregor, Kristen L. Barry, Ronald F. Maio, Steven R. Knutzen. (2003) Rates of At-risk Drinking among Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Occupational and Nonoccupational Injury. Academic Emergency Medicine 10:12, 1354-1361
CrossRef27
Alisdair Mackenzie, Richard P. Allen. (2003) Alcoholics' Evaluations of Alcoholism Treatment. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 21:2, 1-18
CrossRef28
Henry Kranzler, Jaakko Lappalainen, Maggie Nellissery, Joel Gelernter. (2002) Association Study of Alcoholism Subtypes with a Functional Promoter Polymorphism in the Serotonin Transporter Protein Gene. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 26:9, 1330-1335
CrossRef29
A. Thomas McLellan. (2002) Is addiction an illness—can it be treated?. Substance Abuse 23:sup1, 67-94
CrossRef30
Henry Kranzler, Jaakko Lappalainen, Maggie Nellissery, Joel Gelernter. (2002) Association Study of Alcoholism Subtypes with a Functional Promoter Polymorphism in the Serotonin Transporter Protein Gene. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 26:9, 1330
CrossRef31
Jozef Corveleyn, Stiene Limbergen. (2001) Het Minnesota-model: een stappenbenadering van verslavingsproblematiek. Tijdschrift voor Psychotherapie 27:5, 150-160
CrossRef32
M Machado. (2001) Dollars and performance: treating alcohol misuse in Maine. Journal of Health Economics 20:4, 639-666
CrossRef33
Keith Humphreys, Rudolf Moos. (2001) Can Encouraging Substance Abuse Patients to Participate in Self-Help Groups Reduce Demand for Health Care? A Quasi-Experimental Study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 25:5, 711-716
CrossRef34
Barbara S. McCrady, Douglas Ziedonis. (2001) American Psychiatric Association practice guideline for substance use disorders. Behavior Therapy 32:2, 309-336
CrossRef35
Quansheng Shen, A. Thomas McLellan, Jeffrey C. Merrill. (2000) Client's perceived need for treatment and its impact on outcome. Substance Abuse 21:3, 179-192
CrossRef36
Ward S. Condelli, Matthew A. Koch, Bennett Fletcher. (2000) Treatment refusal/attrition among adults randomly assigned to programs at a drug treatment campus The New Jersey Substance Abuse Treatment Campus, Seacaucus, NJ. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 18:4, 395-407
CrossRef37
Michael F. Fleming, Marlon P. Mundt, Michael T. French, Linda Baier Manwell, Ellyn A. Stauffacher, Kristen Lawton Barry. (2000) Benefit-Cost Analysis of Brief Physician Advice With Problem Drinkers in Primary Care Settings. Medical Care 38:1, 7-18
CrossRef38
Robert G. Rychtarik, Gerard J. Connors, Robert B. Whitney, Neil B. McGillicuddy, James M. Fitterling, Philip W. Wirtz. (2000) Treatment settings for persons with alcoholism: Evidence for matching clients to inpatient versus outpatient care.. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68:2, 277-289
CrossRef39
Stephen Magura, Andrew Rosenblum. (2000) Modulating effect of alcohol use on cocaine use. Addictive Behaviors 25:1, 117-122
CrossRef40
Paul G. Barnett. (1999) The cost-effectiveness of substance abuse treatment. Current Psychiatry Reports 1:2, 166-171
CrossRef41
Charles S Lieber. (1999) Carbohydrate Deficient Transferrin in Alcoholic Liver Disease. Alcohol 19:3, 249-254
CrossRef42
Tom L. Smith, Fredric R. Volpe, Jason N. Hashima, Marc A. Schuckit. (1999) Impact of a Stimulant-Focused Enhanced Program on the Outcome of Alcohol- and/or Stimulant-Dependent Men. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 23:11, 1772-1779
CrossRef43
T Dinh-Zarr, C DiGuiseppi, E Heitman, I Roberts. 1999. Interventions for preventing injuries in problem drinkers. .
CrossRef44
N MILLER, L SHEPPARD. (1999) THE ROLE OF THE PHYSICIAN IN ADDICTION PREVENTION AND TREATMENT. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 22:2, 489-505
CrossRef45
O'Connor, Patrick G., Schottenfeld, Richard S., . (1998) Patients with Alcohol Problems. New England Journal of Medicine 338:9, 592-602
Full Text46
Yih-Ing Hser, Judith A. Stein, Margaret L. Polinsky, Margaret A. Maglione. (1998) Predicting perceived quality of drug treatment programs using latent variable models. Evaluation and Program Planning 21:1, 1-10
CrossRef47
Stanton Peele. (1998) The results for drug reform goals of shifting from interdiction/punishment to treatment. International Journal of Drug Policy 9:1, 43-56
CrossRef48
Norman S. Miller, David E. Smith. (1997) The integration of pharmacotherapy and nonpharmacotherapy. Journal of Addictive Diseases 16:4, 51-64
CrossRef49
Vania Modesto-Lowe, Joseph A Burleson, David Hersh, Lance O Bauer, Henry R Kranzler. (1997) Effects of naltrexone on cue-elicited craving for alcohol and cocaine. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 49:1, 9-16
CrossRef50
Norman S. Miller. (1997) Editorial: The integration of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments in drug/alcohol addiction. Journal of Addictive Diseases 16:4, 1-5
CrossRef51
Andrew Guppy, John Marsden. (1997) Assisting employees with drinking problems: Changes in mental health, job perceptions and work performance. Work & Stress 11:4, 341-350
CrossRef52
Robert M. Swift, Norman S. Miller. (1997) Integration of Health Care Economics for Addiction Treatment in Clinic Care. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 29:3, 255-262
CrossRef53
Norman S. Miller, Fred G. Ninonuevo, Debra L. Klamen, Norman G. Hoffmann, David E. Smith. (1997) Integration of Treatment and Posttreatment Variables in Predicting Results of Abstinence-Based Outpatient Treatment After One Year. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 29:3, 239-248
CrossRef54
Joy M Schmitz, Patrick S Bordnick, Maria L. Kearney, Stephanie M Fuller, Joy K Breckenridge. (1997) Treatment outcome of cocaine-alcohol dependent patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 47:1, 55-61
CrossRef55
Kathleen M. Carroll, Richard Schottenfeld. (1997) NONPHARMACOLOGIC APPROACHES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT. Medical Clinics of North America 81:4, 927-944
CrossRef56
F.Curtis Breslin, Stacey L. Sobell, Linda C. Sobell, Mark B. Sobell. (1997) Alcohol treatment outcome methodology: State of the art 1989–1993. Addictive Behaviors 22:2, 145-155
CrossRef57
JOHN W. FINNEY, ANNETTE C. HAHN, RUDOLF H. MOOS. (1996) The effectiveness of inpatient and outpatient treatment for alcohol abuse: the need to focus on mediators and moderators of setting effects. Addiction 91:12, 1773-1796
CrossRef58
Helen M. Annis. (1996) Inpatient versus outpatient setting effects in alcoholism treatment: revisiting Che evidence. Addiction 91:12, 1804-1807
CrossRef59
Wayne Hall. (1996) Statistical questions. Addiction 91:12, 1808-1809
CrossRef60
James R. McKay. (1996) Further progress in understanding the relative efifectiveness of inpatient and outpatient treatment for alcohol abuse. Addiction 91:12, 1803-1804
CrossRef61
John W. Finney, Rudolf H. Moos. (1996) The eEFectiveness of inpatient and outpatient treatment for alcohol abuse: efifect sizes, research design issues and explanatory mechanisms. Addiction 91:12, 1813-1820
CrossRef62
Bruce P. Kennedy, Nancy E. Isaac, John D. Graham. (1996) The Role of Heavy Drinking in the Risk of Traffic Fatalities. Risk Analysis 16:4, 565-569
CrossRef63
Jason M. Novak. (1996) Substance-abusing population treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 13:4, 304-316
CrossRef64
Rob Schneider, Cynthia Mittelmeier, Daniel Gadish. (1996) Day versus inpatient treatment for cocaine dependence: An experimental comparison. The Journal of Mental Health Administration 23:2, 234-245
CrossRef65
Norman S. Miller. (1996) Treatment for Addictive and Psychiatric Disorders: An Overview for Clinical Management. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills 1:2, 79-92
CrossRef66
Onni Niemela, Katja Sorvajarvi, Joan E. Blake, Yedy Israel. (1995) Carbohydrate-Deficient Transferrin as a Marker of Alcohol Abuse: Relationship to Alcohol Consumption, Severity of Liver Disease, and Fibrogenesis. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 19:5, 1203-1208
CrossRef67
Darryl L. Bayer. (1995) Results. Employee Assistance Quarterly 10:4, 53-65
CrossRef68
Henry A. Montgomery, William R. Miller, J. Scott Tonigan. (1995) Does alcoholics anonymous involvement predict treatment outcome?. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 12:4, 241-246
CrossRef69
Rosa M. Crum, Carles Muntaner, William W. Eaton, James C. Anthony. (1995) Occupational Stress and the Risk of Alcohol Abuse and Dependence. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 19:3, 647-655
CrossRef70
Carlton K. Erickson. (1995) Voice of the Victims. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 19:2, 533-534
CrossRef71
Richard A. Rawson, Steven J. Shoptaw, Jeanne L. Obert, Michael J. McCann, Albert L. Hasson, Patricia J. Marinelli-Casey, Paul R. Brethen, Walter Ling. (1995) An intensive outpatient approach for cocaine abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 12:2, 117-127
CrossRef72
Kari Poikolainen. (1995) A public enemy or friend?. Addiction 90:2, 187-189
CrossRef73
Andrea Foote, Bradley Googins, Michael Moriarty, Claudia Sandonato, Jerome Nadolski, Claudette Jefferson. (1994) Implementing long-term EAP follow-up with clients and family members to help prevent relapse—With implications for primary prevention. The Journal of Primary Prevention 15:2, 173-191
CrossRef74
Keith Humphreys, Julian Rappaport. (1994) Researching self-help/mutual aid groups and organizations: Many roads, one journey. Applied and Preventive Psychology 3:4, 217-231
CrossRef75
O'Connor, Patrick G.Selwyn, Peter A.Schottenfeld, Richard S.. (1994) Medical Care for Injection-Drug Users with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. New England Journal of Medicine 331:7, 450-459
Full Text76
Kirk J. Brower, Frederic C. Blow, Elizabeth M. Hill, Sharon A. Mudd. (1994) Treatment Outcome of Alcoholics with and without Cocaine Disorders. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 18:3, 734-739
CrossRef77
John N. Chappel. (1994) Working a program of recovery in alcoholics anonymous. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 11:2, 99-104
CrossRef78
Christine Timko, Rudolf H. Moos, John W. Finney, Bernice S. Moos. (1994) Outcome of treatment for alcohol abuse and involvement in alcoholics anonymous among previously untreated problem drinkers. The Journal of Mental Health Administration 21:2, 145-160
CrossRef79
Grace Chang, Boris M. Astrachan, Kendall J. Bryant. (1994) Emergency physicians' ratings of alcoholism treaters. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 11:2, 131-135
CrossRef80
J Y Bunn, B M Booth, C A Cook, F C Blow, J C Fortney. (1994) The relationship between mortality and intensity of inpatient alcoholism treatment.. American Journal of Public Health 84:2, 211-214
CrossRef81
JONATHAN CHICK. (1993) Alcohol dependence-an illness with a treatment?. Addiction 88:11, 1481-1492
CrossRef82
James R. McKay, Stephen A. Maisto. (1993) An Overview and Critique of Advances in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders. Drugs & Society 8:1, 1-29
CrossRef83
JÜRgen Rehm. (1993) Don't Think Believe and Act! The Derivation from Philosophical Pragmatism of the Principles of Alcoholics Anonymous. Addiction Research & Theory 1:2, 109-118
CrossRef84
Marc Galanter, Susan Egelko, Helen Edwards. (1993) Rational Recovery: Alternative to AA for Addict ion?. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 19:4, 499-510
CrossRef85
Edgar P. Nace, Carlos W. Davis. (1993) Treatment Outcome in Substance-Abusing Patients With a Personality Disorder. The American Journal on Addictions 2:1, 26-33
CrossRef86
Fred Fridinger, Beverly Dehart. (1993) A Model for the Inclusion of a Physical Fitness and Health Promotion Component in a Chemical Abuse Treatment Program. Journal of Drug Education 23:3, 215-222
CrossRef87
Douglas Budde, Bruce Rounsaville, Kendall Bryant. (1992) Inpatient and outpatient cocaine abusers: Clinical comparisons at intake and one-year follow-up. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 9:4, 337-342
CrossRef88
(1992) Treatment for Alcohol-Abusing Workers. New England Journal of Medicine 326:21, 1429-1431
Full Text89
Cherry Lowman. (1992) Substance abuse treatment services: An introduction. The Journal of Mental Health Administration 19:1, 1-4
CrossRef90
Jack E. Scott, David Greenberg, Josephine Pizarro. (1992) A survey of state insurance mandates covering alcohol and other drug treatment. The Journal of Mental Health Administration 19:1, 96-118
CrossRef91
Goodwin, Donald W., . (1991) Inpatient Treatment of Alcoholism — New Life for the Minneapolis Plan. New England Journal of Medicine 325:11, 804-806
Full Text
- Letters
