Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 389

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reconsidering the evaluation of addiction treatment: from retrospective follow‐up to concurrent recovery monitoring

McLellan, A. Thomas, McKay, James R., Forman, Robert, Cacciola, John, Kemp, Jack·2005·Addiction

Abstract

Historically, addiction treatments have been delivered and evaluated under an acute‐care format. Fixed amounts or durations of treatment have been provided and their effects evaluated 6–12 months after completion of care. The explicit expectation of treatment has been enduring reductions in substance use, improved personal health and social function, generally referred to as ‘recovery’. In contrast, treatments for chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension and asthma have been provided for indeterminate periods and their effects evaluated during the course of those treatments. Here the expectations are for most of the same results, but only during the course of continuing care and monitoring. The many similarities between addiction and mainstream chronic illnesses stand in contrast to the differences in the ways addiction is conceptualized, treated and evaluated. This paper builds upon established methods of during‐treatment evaluation developed for the treatment of other chronic illnesses and suggests a parallel evaluation system for out‐patient, continuing‐care forms of addiction treatment. The suggested system retains traditional patient‐level, behavioral outcome measures of recovery, but suggests that these outcomes should be collected and reported immediately and regularly by clinicians at the beginning of addiction treatment sessions, as a way of evaluating recovery progress and making decisions about continuing care. We refer to this paradigm as ‘concurrent recovery monitoring’ and discuss its potential for producing more timely, efficient, clinically relevant and accountable evaluations.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01012.x

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

See all 389

Metadata

Authors
McLellan, A. T., McKay, J. R., Forman, R., Cacciola, J., & Kemp, J.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-03-22
Volume
100
Issue
4
Pages
447-458
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2113244258
Cited by
389
References
12
FWCI
14.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reconsidering the evaluation of addiction treatment: from retrospective follow‐up to concurrent recovery monitoring. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01012.x
The paper
McLellan, A. T., McKay, J. R., Forman, R., Cacciola, J., & Kemp, J. (2005). Reconsidering the evaluation of addiction treatment: from retrospective follow‐up to concurrent recovery monitoring. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01012.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.