Cited by 50Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Attendance and substance use outcomes for the Seeking Safety program: sometimes less is more

Open access
Hien, Denise A., Morgan-Lopez, Antonio A., Campbell, Aimee N. C., Saavedra, Lissette M., Wu, Elwin, Cohen, Lisa, Ruglass, Lesia, Nunes, Edward V.·2012·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study uses data from the largest effectiveness trial to date on treatment of co-occurring posttraumatic stress and substance use disorders, using advances in statistical methodology for modeling treatment attendance and membership turnover in rolling groups. METHOD: Women receiving outpatient substance abuse treatment (N = 353) were randomized to 12 sessions of Seeking Safety or a health education control condition. Assessments were completed at baseline and at 1 week, 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment. Outcome measures were alcohol and cocaine use in the prior 30 days captured using the Addiction Severity Index. Latent class pattern mixture modeling (LCPMM) was used to estimate attendance patterns and to test for treatment effects within and across latent attendance patterns and group membership turnover. RESULTS: Across LCPMM analyses for alcohol and cocaine use, similar treatment attendance patterns emerged: Completers never decreased below an 80% probability of attendance, droppers never exceeded a 41% probability of attendance, and titrators demonstrated a 50% to 80% probability of attendance. Among completers, there were significant decreases in alcohol use from baseline to 1-week posttreatment, followed by nonsignificant increases in alcohol during follow-up. No differences between treatment conditions were detected. Titrators in Seeking Safety had lower rates of alcohol use from 1-week through 12-month follow-up compared with control participants. Droppers had nonsignificant increases in alcohol during both study phases. Cocaine use findings were similar but did not reach significance levels. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of client self-modulation of treatment dosage and group membership composition may influence behavioral treatment outcomes among this population.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0026361

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In another treatment trial for comorbid PTSD and SUD, a person-centered analysis derived early dropout, titration, and completion patterns, and treatment titration was not associated with poorer outcomes relative to completion.

    “Another treatment trial for comorbid PTSD and SUD used a person-centered approach to empirically derive distinct attendance patterns of early dropout, titration, and completion—importantly; treatment titration was not associated with poorer outcomes relative to completion (Hien et al., 2012).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hien, D. A., Morgan-Lopez, A. A., Campbell, A. N. C., Saavedra, L. M., Wu, E., Cohen, L., Ruglass, L., & Nunes, E. V.
Affiliations
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • RTI International (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • City College of New York (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2012-02
Volume
80
Issue
1
Pages
29-42
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2156534035
Cited by
50
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (U10DA13035, U10 DA13714, U10 DA13038, U10 DA13732, U10 DA13727, U10 DA013720, U10 DA013046, K24 DA022412, R01DA025198)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
treatment attendance, treatment discontinuation, substance use disorders, alcohol consumption, cocaine use, women, outpatient substance abuse treatment
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Patient Compliance, Patient Dropouts, Patient Education as Topic, Psychotherapy, Group, Severity of Illness Index, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Substance-Related Disorders, Cocaine-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review