PDF (Español)
FLIP
Authors
Abstract
Objective: to describe the process of development and validation of an instrument created for the evaluation of treatment results in disorders caused by substance use. Materials and methods: The study was carried out in three phases. Phase 1: review of the literature in the main health science databases about scales or instruments for evaluation of treatment results in disorders caused by substance use; Phase 2: de novo instrument development and validation by experts using a modified 2-phase Delphi technique; Phase 3: clinical validation study involving 100 users of a public institution. Results: The “Escala de evaluación de tratamiento multimodal” (EETM), after its content analysis, obtained appropriate results in terms of pertinence and relevance. Additionally, it showed Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients between 0.799 and 0.963 and similarities between the evaluator and the patient results. Conclusions: It was concluded that the EETM proved to be a valid instrument for the evaluation of treatment results in institutions with comprehensive interventions in disorders caused by substance use and during the admission period.
Keywords:
Trastornos relacionados con sustancias
evaluación de resultado (atención de salud)
evaluación de programas y proyectos de salud
Substance-related disorders; treatment result
result assessment (health care)
health programs and projects evaluation
Transtornos relacionados com substâncias
References
2. Barrondo-Lakarra S, López de Jesús M, Meana-Martínez J. Bases biológicas, psicológicas y socioculturales. En: Pérez J, Valderrama J, Cervera G, Rubio G, editores. Tratado SET de trastornos adictivos. Buenos Aires: Médica Panamericana; 2006. p. 1-13.
3. OEA. El problema de las drogas en las Américas. Washington: OEA; 2013.
4. Friedmann PD, Lemon SC, Stein MD, Etheridge RM, D’Aunno TA. Linkage to medical services in the drug abuse treatment outcome study. Med Care. 2001; 39 (3): 284-295.
5. NIDA, NIH. Enfoques para el tratamiento de la drogadicción. Disponible en: http://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/metodos10.pdf.
6. Amato L, Minozzi S, Davoli M, Vecchi S, Ferri MM, Mayet S. Psychosocial and pharmacological treatments versus pharmacological treatments for opioid detoxification. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; 4: CD005031.
7. Fernández-Hermida JR, Secades R, Magdalena-Benavente Y, Riestra del Rosal C. Evaluación de la eficacia del programa educativo-terapéutico para rehabilitación de toxicómanos de Proyecto Hombre en Asturias. Oviedo, España: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Principado de Asturias; 1999.
8. World Health Organization. WHO European Ministerial Conference on Mental Health. Facing the Challenges, Building Solutions. Disponible en: https://ec.europa.eu/health/mental_health/events/ev_20050112_en.
9. NIDA. DrugFacts: Understanding drug abuse and addiction. Understanding drug abuse and addiction. 2012. Disponible en: http://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/drugfacts_understanding_addiction_final_0.pdf.
10. Pérez J, Valderrama J, Cervera G, Rubio G, editores. Tratado SET de trastornos adictivos. Buenos Aires: Médica Panamericana ; 2006.
11. De Wilde J, Broekaert E, Rosseel Y. Problem severity profiles of clients in European therapeutic communities: Gender differences in various areas of functioning. Eur Addict Res. 2006; 12 (3): 128-137.
12. Leonard KE, Homish GG. Predictors of heavy drinking and drinking problems over the first 4 years of marriage. Psychol Addict Behav. 2008; 22 (1): 25.
13. McLellan AT, Cacciola JC, Alterman AI, Rikoon SH, Carise C. The addiction severity index at 25: Origins, contributions and transitions. Am J Addict. 2006; 15 (2): 113-124.
14. Klein A. Outcomes of alcohol/Other drugs dependency treatment. Minnesota: Butler Center of Research; 2011.
15. Colleti M. La evaluación de los tratamientos. En: Grup IGIA. Contextos, sujetos y drogas: un manual sobre drogodependencias. Barcelona: Fundación de Ayuda contra la Drogadicción; 2000. p. 373-380.
16. Garland E, Froeliger B, Howard M. Mindfulness training targets neurocognitive mechanisms of addiction at the attention-appraisal-emotion interface. Front Psychiatry. 2014; 4: 173.
17. Lazarus AA. New methods in psychotherapy: A case study. S Afr Med J. 1958; 32 (26): 660-663.
18. Giraldo-Ferrer LF, Velásquez-Tirado JD, Restrepo-Medrano JC, Tirado-Otálvaro AF. Uso de instrumentos clínicos para la evaluación de pacientes y resultados de tratamiento en trastornos por uso de sustancias (TUS). Rev Fac Med. 2016; 64 (4): 749-759.
19. Ryan A, Holmes J, Hunt V, Dunlop A, Mammen K, Holland R, et al. Validation and implementation of the Australian treatment outcomes profile in specialist drug and alcohol settings. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2014; 33 (1): 33-42.
20. Simpson M, Lawrinson P, Copeland J, Gates P. The Alcohol Treatment Outcome Measure (ATOM): A new clinical tool for standardising outcome measurement for alcohol treatment. Addict Behav. 2009; 34 (1): 121-124.
21. Lawrinson P, Copeland J, Indig D. Development and validation of a brief instrument for routine outcome monitoring in opioid maintenance pharmacotherapy services: The brief treatment outcome measure (BTOM). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005; 80 (1): 125-133.
22. Deering DE, Sellman JD, Adamson SJ, Horn J, Frampton CM. Development of a brief treatment instrument for routine clinical use with methadone maintenance treatment clients: The Methadone Treatment Index. Subst Use Misuse. 2008; 43 (11): 1666-1680.
23. Wennberg P, Philips B, Jong K. The Swedish version of the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45): Reliability and factor structure in a substance abuse sample. Psychol Psychother Theory Res Pract. 2010; 83 (3): 325-329.
24. Dutra L, Stathopoulou G, Basden SL, Leyro TM, Powers MB, Otto MW. A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2008; 165: 179-187.
25. NIH. Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide. Darby, PA: DIANE Publishing; 2012.
26. Polit DF, Hungler BP, Palacios-Martínez R, Féher de la Torre G. Investigación científica en ciencias de la salud: principios y métodos. 2007. Disponible en: http://www.worldcat.org/title/investigacion-cientifica-en-ciencias-de-la-salud-principios-y-metodos-sexta-edicion/oclc/758102303/editions?referer=di.
27. Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008; 65 (23): 2276-2284.
28. Parsian N, Dunning TA. Developing and validating a questionnaire to measure spirituality: A psychometric process. Glob J Health Sci. 2009; 1 (1): 2-11.
29. Prochaska JO, DiClemente C, Norcross JC. Cómo cambia la gente. Aplicaciones en los comportamientos adictivos. RET Rev Toxicom N. 1994; 1: 3-14.
30. Argimon-Pallas JM, Jiménez-Villa J. Métodos de investigación clínica y epidemiológica. Madrid: Elsevier España; 2004.
31. Lawshe CH. Quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975; 28 (4): 563-575.
32. McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R, Smith I, Grissom G, et al. The fifth edition of the addiction severity index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992; 9 (3): 199-213.
33. Darke S, Hall W, Wodaki A, Heather N, Ward J. Development and validation of a multidimensional instrument for assessing outcome of treatment among opiate users: The Opiate Treatment Index. Br J Addict. 1992; 87 (5): 733-742.
34. Marsden J, Gossop M, Stewart D, Best D, Farrell M, Lehmann P, et al. The Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP): A brief instrument for assessing treatment outcome. Addiction. 1998; 93 (12): 18571867.
35. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol. 1992; 47 (9): 1102.
36. Hernández MÁT, Gómez CF. Validación española del Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP). Adicciones. 2004; 16 (4): 265-274.
37. Moos RH, Nichol AC, Moos BS. Risk factors for symptom exacerbation among treated patients with substance use disorders. Addiction. 2002; 97 (1): 75-85.
