Cited by 193Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentHomelessness and Social Issues

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of assertive continuing care on continuing care linkage, adherence and abstinence following residential treatment for adolescents with substance use disorders

Abstract

AIMS: This study compared assertive continuing care (ACC) to usual continuing care (UCC) on linkage, retention and a measure of continuing care adherence. Outcome analyses tested the direct and indirect effects of both conditions and level of adherence on early (months 1-3) and longer-term (months 4-9) abstinence. DESIGN: Two-group randomized design. SETTING: Eleven counties surrounding a community-based residential treatment program in the Midwestern section of the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 183 adolescents, ages 12-17 years, with one or more Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version IV (DSM-IV) substance use dependence disorder and met American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM) placement criteria for non-medical residential treatment. INTERVENTION: Prior to discharge from residential treatment, participants were assigned randomly to receive either UCC, available at outpatient clinics in the 11-county study area, or ACC via home visits. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported interview data were collected at intake, 3, 6 and 9 months post-residential discharge. Urine test data and interviews with a caregiver were conducted at baseline and 3 months. FINDINGS: ACC led to significantly greater continuing care linkage and retention and longer-term abstinence from marijuana. ACC resulted in significantly better adherence to continuing care criteria which, in turn, predicted superior early abstinence. Superior early abstinence outcomes for both conditions predicted longer-term abstinence. CONCLUSIONS: ACC appears to be an effective alternative to UCC for linking, retaining and increasing adherence to continuing care. Replication with larger samples is needed to investigate further the direct and indirect effects of ACC found in this study

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01648.x

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 59 references

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Office of Applied Studies (OAS)., 2004, Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 1992–2002
  2. Mee‐Lee D., 2001, ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance‐Related Disorders
  3. Dennis M.L., 2003, Adolescent Drug Treatment in the United States: Exemplary Models from a National Evaluation Study, 3
  4. 10.1037/1064-1297.8.3.377 · DOI
  5. American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM)., 2001, Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment for Substance‐Related Disorders
  6. Joint Commission on Accreditation of HealthcareOrganizations (JCAHO)., 2006, Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Behavioral Healthcare
  7. Godley S.H., 2001, The Assertive Aftercare Protocol: a Case Manager's Manual for Working with Adolescents After Residential Treatment of Alcohol and Other Substance Use Disorders.
  8. Godley S.H., 2001, the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A‐CRA) for Adolescent Cannabis Users
  9. American Psychiatric Association (APA)., 1994, American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
  10. Drug Strategies., 2003, Treating Teens: a Guide to Adolescent Drug Programs
  11. Dennis M.L., 1999, Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN): Administration Guide for the GAIN and Related Measures
  12. Dennis M.L., 2003, Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN): Administration Guide for the GAIN and Related Measures
  13. Godley M.D., Understanding and Treating Adolescent Substance Use Disorders
  14. Dennis M.L., 2002, Problems of Drug Dependence, 2001. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Scientific Meeting, 113

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–193 of 193

Metadata

Authors
Godley, M. D., Godley, S. H., Dennis, M. L., Funk, R. R., & Passetti, L. L.
Affiliations
Chestnut Health Systems (US)
Corresponding author
Godley, Mark D.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-12-20
Volume
102
Issue
1
Pages
81-93
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W1978164555
Cited by
193
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 15
FWCI
6.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA010368)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homelessness and Social Issues
Keywords
treatment retention, abstinence, adolescents, substance use disorders, residential treatment, cannabis use, home visits, outpatient follow-up
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Continuity of Patient Care, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Residential Treatment, United States, Substance Abuse Treatment Centers, Substance-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