Browsing by Author "Hunter, Sarah B."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Identifying optimal level-of-care placement decisions for adolescent substance use treatment
    (Elsevier, 2020-07) Agniel, Denis; Almirall, Daniel; Burkhart, Q.; Grant, Sean; Hunter, Sarah B.; Pedersen, Eric R.; Ramchand, Rajeev; Griffin, Beth Ann; Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health
    Background: Adolescents respond differentially to substance use treatment based on their individual needs and goals. Providers may benefit from guidance (via decision rules) for personalizing aspects of treatment, such as level-of-care (LOC) placements, like choosing between outpatient or inpatient care. The field lacks an empirically-supported foundation to inform the development of an adaptive LOC-placement protocol. This work begins to build the evidence base for adaptive protocols by estimating them from a large observational dataset. Methods: We estimated two-stage LOC-placement protocols adapted to individual adolescent characteristics collected from the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs assessment tool (n = 10,131 adolescents). We used a modified version of Q-learning, a regression-based method for estimating personalized treatment rules over time, to estimate four protocols, each targeting a potentially distinct treatment goal: one primary outcome (a composite of ten positive treatment outcomes) and three secondary (substance frequency, substance problems, and emotional problems). We compared the adaptive protocols to non-adaptive protocols using an independent dataset. Results: Intensive outpatient was recommended for all adolescents at intake for the primary outcome, while low-risk adolescents were recommended for no further treatment at followup while higher-risk patients were recommended to inpatient. Our adaptive protocols outperformed static protocols by an average of 0.4 standard deviations (95 % confidence interval 0.2-0.6) of the primary outcome. Conclusions: Adaptive protocols provide a simple one-to-one guide between adolescents' needs and recommended treatment which can be used as decision support for clinicians making LOC-placement decisions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Practical factors determining adolescent substance use treatment settings: Results from four online stakeholder panels
    (Elsevier, 2020) Grant, Sean; Hunter, Sarah B.; Pedersen, Eric R.; Griffin, Beth Ann; Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health
    Practical factors can significantly influence the setting, or level of care, where an adolescent receives substance use treatment. This study aimed to identify practical factors that stakeholders find most critical to consider when planning adolescent substance use treatment. We conducted online panels with four stakeholder groups: providers, policymakers, researchers, and parents. Stakeholders nominated, rated, and commented on the importance of 10 practical factors that could influence treatment setting decisions. We assessed consensus on the rated importance of practical factors using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. We thematically analyzed stakeholders comments to explain how they differentiated relative importance. 153 stakeholders (66 providers, 38 policymakers, 27 researchers, and 22 parents) identified continuity of care, coordination of care across service sectors, and quality of care as the practical factors of highest importance. Participants rated higher the practical factors they perceived to (1) trump clinical appropriateness as the reason for placing an adolescent in a given setting, (2) steer adolescents toward specific settings, or (3) steer an adolescent away from specific settings. Conversely, participants rated lower the practical factors they perceived (1) applicable to clinical intervention rather than treatment setting, (2) unrelated to initial recommendations, (3) relevant to any setting, or (4) applicable only to certain contexts and sub-populations. These findings help elucidate why stakeholders view certain practical factors as critical to consider in actual decisions about substance use treatment settings for adolescents. Future research should investigate how to incorporate these practical factors alongside clinical needs and treatment goals in placement criteria and treatment matching.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prioritizing Needs and Outcomes for Adolescent Substance Use Treatment Planning: An Online Modified-Delphi Process
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2020-07-01) Grant, Sean; Pedersen, Eric R.; Hunter, Sarah B.; Khodyakov, Dmitry; Griffin, Beth Ann; Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health
    Key stakeholders can have differing views about which information is essential to inform placement decisions for all patients. This study examined consensus across stakeholder groups on the most important individual needs and treatment outcomes for informing decisions specifically about the level of care for an adolescent in substance use treatment. Methods: We conducted an online modified-Delphi process with treatment providers, policymakers, researchers, and parents of adolescents who have received substance use treatment. Participants rated 48 individual needs from the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs–Initial that were mapped onto the 6 dimensions of the American Society of Addiction Medicine Criteria. In addition, participants rated 10 treatment outcomes from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Outcome Measures. We assessed consensus within stakeholder groups using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. We considered the items reaching consensus with the highest ratings across stakeholder groups as the most important individual needs and treatment outcomes. Results: We recruited 194 participants (81 providers, 54 policymakers, 32 researchers, 27 parents). Participants identified suicidality and severity of substance use disorder symptoms as the most important individual needs, and reduction in substance use as the most important treatment outcome. Conclusions: Standardized procedures for matching adolescents to levels of care for substance use treatment should at a minimum be based on assessments of suicidality and severity of substance use disorder symptoms, and consider reduction in substance use as a primary treatment outcome. These findings can progress the development of “level-of-care” decision rules specifically for adolescents.