Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 8, No. 2, 2002
Issue release date: April 2002

Compulsory Substance Abuse Treatment: An Overview of Recent Findings and Issues

Wild T.C. · Roberts A.B. · Cooper E.L.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

An overview of research trends and issues in the area of compulsory substance abuse treatment is presented, using a sample of 170 English-language articles obtained from a search of 4 databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, supplemented by a manual search). About half (51%) of these articles were non-empirical (i.e. literature reviews, policy proposals, legal and ethical commentaries on compulsory treatment). A subsample of empirical studies published since 1988 (n = 71) was coded to summarize research trends in relation to 3 key issues: (1) how compulsory treatment was studied (country of origin; type of compulsory treatment; treatment population), (2) the evidence base for judging effectiveness of compulsory treatment (research design; sampling; type, timing and results of outcome measures), and (3) the relationship between compulsory treatment and coercion (measurement strategies). Directions for future research are discussed.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Gostin LO: Compulsory treatment for drug-dependent persons: Justification for a public health approach to drug dependency. Milbank Q 1991;69:561–593.
  2. Husak D: Drugs and Rights. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
  3. Inciardi JA, McBride D: Legalization: A high-risk alternative in the war on drugs. Am Behav Sci 1989;32:259–289.
  4. Nadelmann E: Drug prohibition in the United States: Costs, consequences, and alternatives. Science 1989;245:939–946.

    External Resources

  5. Chaiken MR, Johnson BD: Characteristics of Different Types of Drug-Involved Offenders. Washington, National Institute of Justice, 1988.
  6. Goldstein PJ: The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 1985;15:493–506.
  7. McBride DC, McCoy CB: Crime and drugs: The issues and literature. J Drug Issues 1982;12:137–152.
  8. Hall W: The role of legal coercion in the treatment of offenders with alcohol and heroin problems. Paper presented at the Second Annual Symposium of Corrections Health Service on ‘Drug-Related Crime’, Sydney, September 1995.
  9. Gerstein DR, Harwood, HJ: Treating Drug Problems: A Study of Effectiveness and Financing of Public and Private Drug Treatment Systems. Washington, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1990, vol 1.
  10. Wild TC: Compulsory substance user treatment and harm reduction: A critical analysis. Subst Use Misuse1999;34:83–102.
  11. Leukefeld CG, Tims FG (eds): Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice. Rockville, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1988.
  12. Wells-Parker E: Mandated treatment: Lessons from research with drinking and driving offenders. Alcohol Health Res World 1995;18:302–306.
  13. Room R: The US general population’s experiences of responding to alcohol problems. Br J Addict 1989;84:1291–1304.

    External Resources

  14. Trice HM, Sonnenstuhl WJ: Job behaviors and the denial syndrome; in Pittman DJ, White HR (eds): Society, Culture, and Drinking Patterns Reexamined. New Brunswick, Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, 1991.
  15. Watkins KE, Podus D: Alcohol and drug abuse: The impact of terminating disability benefits for substance abusers on substance use and treatment participation. Psychiatr Serv 2000;51:1371–1381.
  16. Room R, Greenfield TK, Weisner C: ‘People who might have liked you to drink less’: Changing responses to drinking by US family members and friends, 1979–1990. Contemp Drug Probl 1991;18:573–595.
  17. Hasin DS: Treatment/self-help for alcohol-related problems: Relationship to social pressure and alcohol dependence. J Stud Alcohol 1994;55:660–666.

    External Resources

  18. Johnson V: Intervention: How to Help Someone Who Doesn’t Want Help. Minneapolis, Johnson Institute Books, 1986.
  19. Logan D: Getting alcoholics to treatment by social network intervention. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1983;34:360–361.

    External Resources

  20. Schmidt L, Weisner C: Developments in alcoholism treatment; in Galanter M (ed): Recent Developments in Alcoholism. New York, Plenum Press, 1993, vol 11.
  21. Rotgers F: Coercion in addictions treatment. Annu Rev Addict Res Treat 1992;2:403–416.
  22. Weisner C: Coercion in alcohol treatment; in Institute of Medicine US (ed): Broadening the base of Treatment for Alcohol Problems: Report of a Study by a Committee of the Institute of Medicine, Division of Mental Health and Behavioral Medicine. Washington, National Academy Press, 1990.
  23. Ward D: The use of coercion in the treatment of alcoholism: A methodological review. J Drug Issues 1979;9:387–398.
  24. Inciardi JA, McBride DC, Rivers JE: Drugs, Health, and Social Policy Series. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 1996, vol 3.
  25. Kownacki RJ, Shadish WR: Does alcoholics anonymous work? The results from a meta-analysis of controlled experiments. Subst Use Misuse 1999;34:1897–1916.

    External Resources

  26. Babor TF: Avoiding the horrid and beastly sin of drunkenness: Does dissuasion make a difference? J Consult Clin Psychol 1994;62:1127–1140.
  27. Polcin DL: Drug and alcohol offenders coerced into treatment: A review of modalities and suggestions for research on social model programs. Subst Use Misuse 2001;36:589–608.
  28. Platt JJ, Buhringer G, Kaplan CD, Brown BS, Taube DO: The prospects and limitations of compulsory treatment for drug addiction. J Drug Issues 1988;18:505–525.

    External Resources

  29. Farabee D, Prendergast M, Anglin MD: The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Fed Probat 1998;62:3–10.
  30. Anglin MD, Hser Y: Legal coercion and drug abuse treatment: Research findings and social policy implications; in Inciardi J (ed): Handbook of Drug Control in the United States. Westport, Greenwood Press, 1990.
  31. Anglin MD, Hser Y: Criminal justice and the drug-abusing offender: Policy issues of coerced treatment. Behav Sci Law 1991;9:243–267.
  32. Anglin MD: The efficacy of civil commitment in treating narcotic addiction; in Leukefeld CG, Tims F (eds): Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice. Rockville, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1988.
  33. Polcin DL: Criminal justice coercion in the treatment of alcohol problems: An examination of two client subgroups. J Psychoactive Drugs 1999;31:137–143.
  34. Hser YI, Maglione M, Polinsky ML, Anglin MD: Predicting drug treatment entry among treatment-seeking individuals. J Subst Abuse Treat 1998;15:213–220.
  35. Joe GW, Simpson DD, Broome KM: Retention and Patient Engagement Models for Different Treatment Modalities in DATOS. Drug Alcohol Depend 1999;57:113–125.
  36. Knight K: Legal pressure, treatment readiness, and engagement in long-term residential programs. J Offender Rehab 2001;31:2000–2115.
  37. Maglione M, Chao B, Anglin D: Residential treatment of methamphetamine users: Correlates of drop-out from the California Alcohol and Drug Data System (CADDS), 1994–1997. Addict Res 2000;8:65–79.
  38. Marlowe DB, Kirby KC, Bonieskie LM, Glass DJ, Dodds LD, Husband SD, Platt JJ, Festinger DS: Assessment of coercive and noncoercive pressures to enter drug abuse treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend 1996;42:77–84.

    External Resources

  39. Marlowe DB, Merikle EP, Kirby KC, Festinger DS, McLellan AT: Multidimensional Assessment of Perceived Treatment-Entry Pressures Among Substance Abusers. Psychol Addict Behav 2001;15:97–108.
  40. Polcin DL, Weisner C: Criminal justice coercion in the treatment of alcohol problems: An examination of two client subgroups. J Psychoactive Drugs 1999;54:63–68.
  41. Wild TC, Newton-Taylor B, Alletto R: Perceived coercion among clients entering substance abuse treatment: Structural and psychological determinants. Addict Behav 1998;23:81–95.
  42. Wild TC, Enzle ME: Social contagion of motivational orientations; in Deci E, Ryan RM (eds): Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester, University of Rochester Press, in press.
  43. Deci E, Ryan RM (eds): Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester, University of Rochester Press, in press.
  44. Gardner W, Hoge SK, Bennett N, Roth LH, et al: Two scales for measuring patients’ perceptions for coercion during mental hospital admission. Behav Sci Law 1993;11:307–321.
  45. Maxwell SR: Sanction threats in court-ordered programs: Examining their effects on offenders mandated into drug treatment. Crime Delinquency 2000;46:563.
  46. Wolf E, Colyer C: Everyday hassles: Barriers to recovery in drug court. J Drug Issues 2001;31:233–258.
  47. Bourquin-Tièche D, Besson J, Lambert H, Yersin B: Involuntary treatment of alcohol-dependent patients: A study of 17 consecutive cases of civil commitment. Eur Addict Res 2001;7:48–55.
  48. Sallmen B: Psychiatric comorbidity in alcoholics treated at an institution with both coerced and voluntary admission. Eur J Psychiatry 1996;12:1997–1334.
  49. Wild TC, Newton-Taylor B, Ogborne AC, Mann R, Erickson P, Macdonald S: Attitudes toward compulsory substance abuse treatment: A comparison of the public, counselors, probationers, and judges’ views. Drug Educ Prev Policies 2001;8:33–45.
  50. Colby JJ: Evaluation of a college policy mandating treatment for students with substantiated drinking problems. J Coll Stud Dev 2000;41:395–404.
  51. Wild TC, Cunningham J, Hobdon K: When do people believe that alcohol treatment is effective? The importance of perceived client and therapist motivation. Psychol Addict Behav 1998;12:93–100.

    External Resources

  52. Belenko S, Fagan JA, Dumanovsky T: The effects of legal sanctions on recidivism in special drug courts. Justice Syst J 1995;18:53–82.
  53. Ward DA: The use of coercion in the treatment of alcoholism: A methodological review. J Drug Issues 1979;9:387–398.
  54. Fagan R, Fagan N: The impact of legal coercion in the treatment of alcoholism. J Drug Issues 1982;12:103–113.
  55. Wells-Parker E, Kenne DR, Spratke KL, Williams MT: Self-efficacy and motivation for controlling drinking and drinking/driving: An investigation of changes across a driving under the influence (DUI) intervention program and of recidivism prediction. Addict Behav 2000;25:229–238.
  56. Gondolf EW: A 30-month follow-up of court-referred batterers in four cities. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2000;44:111–128.
  57. Hamm MS: Addicts helping addicts to help themselves: The Baltimore City Jail project; in Weisheit RA (ed): Drugs, Crime and the Criminal Justice System. Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Monograph Series. Cincinnati, Anderson Publishing Co, 1990, pp 361–381.
  58. Lee MT, Reif S, Ritter GA, Levine HJ, Horgan CM: Access to services in the substance abuse treatment system: Variations by facility characteristics. Recent Dev Alcohol 2001;15:137–156.

    External Resources

  59. Brochu S, Guyon L, Desjardins L: Comparative profiles of addicted adult populations in rehabilitation and correctional services. J Subst Abuse Treat 1999;16:173–182.

    External Resources

  60. Katz EC, Gruber K, Chutuape MA, Stitzer ML: Reinforcement-based outpatient treatment for opiate and cocaine abusers. J Subst Abuse Treat 2001;20:93–98.

    External Resources

  61. Pettinati HM, Volpicelli JR, Pierce JD, O’Brien CP: Improving naltrexone response: An intervention for medical practitioners to enhance medication compliance in alcohol dependent patients. J Addict Dis 2000;19:71–83.
  62. Egg R, Pearson FS, Cleland CM, Lipton DS: Evaluations of correctional treatment programs in Germany: A review and meta-analysis. Subst Use Misuse 2000;35:1967–2009.

    External Resources

  63. Harwood HJ, Hubbard RL, Collins JJ, Rachal JV: The cost of crime and the benefits of drug abuse treatment: A cost-benefit analysis using TOPS data; in Leukefeld CG, Tims FG (eds): Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice. Rockville, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1988, pp 209–235.
  64. Keaton B, Yamatani H: Benefits of mandatory EAP participation: A study of employees with last chance contracts. EAP Q 1993;9:67–77.
  65. Barber JG, Crisp BR: The ‘pressure to change’ approach to working with partners of heavy drinkers. Addiction 1995;90:269–276.
  66. Holmila M: Young families and alcohol use in Finland and the Soviet Union. Contemp Drug Probl 1987;14:649–672.
  67. Holmila M: Social control experienced by heavily drinking women. Contemp Drug Probl 1991;18:547–571.
  68. Inciardi JA: Drug abuse treatment in criminal justice settings. J Drug Issues 1993;23:1–6.
  69. Baldwin S, Heather N, Lawson A, Robertson I, Mooney J, Braggins F: Comparison of effectiveness: Behavioural and talk-based alcohol education courses of court-referred young offenders. Behav Psychother 1991;19:157–172.
  70. Brecht ML, Anglin MD, Wang JC: Treatment effectiveness for legally coerced versus voluntary methadone maintenance clients. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1993;19:89–106.
  71. Desland ML: A 12-month prospective comparison of court-diverted with self-referred heroin users. Drug Alcohol Rev 1994;11:121–129.

    External Resources

  72. Desmond DP, Maddux JF: Compulsory supervision and methadone maintenance. J Subst Abuse Treat 1996;13:79–83.
  73. Fugelstad A, Agren G, Romelsjo A: Changes in mortality, arrests, and hospitalizations in nonvoluntarily treated heroin addicts in relation to methadone treatment. Subst Use Misuse 1998;33:2803–2817.

    External Resources

  74. Heale P: A process evaluation of the CREDIT (Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment) pilot programme. Drug Alcohol Rev 2001;20:223–230.
  75. Bavon A: The effect of the Tarrant county drug court project on recidivism. Eval Prog Plan 2001;24:13–22.
  76. Berkowitz G, Brindis C, Clayson Z, Peterson S: Options for recovery: Promoting success among women mandated to treatment. J Psychoactive Drugs 1996;28:31–38.
  77. O’Loughlin F: Controlled assessment of alcoholics admitted involuntarily to a general psychiatric hospital. Ir J Psychol Med 1996;13:140–143.
  78. Vito GF: The impact of treatment: The Jefferson County (Kentucky) drug court program. Fed Probat 1998;62:46–51.
  79. Batel P, Pessione F, Bouvier AM, Rueff B: Prompting alcoholics to be referred to an alcohol clinic: The effectiveness of a simple letter. Addiction 1995;90:811–814.
  80. Walsh DC, Hingson RW, Merrigan DM, Levenson SM, Cupples LA, Heeren T, Coffman GA, Becker CA, Barker TA, Hamilton SK, McGuire TG, Kelly CA: A randomized trial of treatment options for alcohol-abusing workers. N Engl J Med 1991;325:775–782.
  81. Brizer DA, Maslansky R, Galanter M: Treatment retention of patients referred by public assistance to an alcoholism clinic. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1990;16:259–264.

    External Resources

  82. Lawental E, McLellan AT, Grissom GR, Brill P, O’Brien C: Coerced treatment for substance abuse problems detected through workplace urine surveillance: Is it effective? J Subst Abuse 1996;8:115–128.
  83. Nelson HD, Matthews AM, Girard DE, Bloom JD: Substance-impaired physicians probationary and voluntary treatment programs compared. West J Med 1996;165:31–36.

    External Resources

  84. Kofoed L: Using group therapy to persuade dual-diagnosis patients to seek substance abuse treatment. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1989;39:1209–1211.
  85. Loneck B, Garrett JA, Banks SM: A comparison of the Johnson Intervention with four other methods of referral to outpatient treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1996;22:233–246.
  86. Loneck B, Garrett JA, Banks SM: The Johnson Intervention and relapse during outpatient treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1996;22:363–375.

    External Resources

  87. Liepman MR, Nirenberg TD, Begin AM: Evaluation of a program designed to help family and significant others to motivate resistant alcoholics into recovery. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1989;15:209–221.

    External Resources

  88. Watson CG: The comparative recidivism rates of voluntary- and coerced-admission male alcoholics. J Clin Psychol 1989;44:573–581.
  89. Speigelman R: Mandated AA attendance for recidivism drinking drivers: Ideology, organization, and California criminal justice practices. Addiction 1994;89:859–868.

    External Resources

  90. Beane EA, Beck JC: Court based civil commitment of alcoholics and substance abusers. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1991;19:359–366.
  91. Howard DL McCaughrin WC: The treatment effectiveness of outpatient substance misuse treatment organizations between court-mandated and voluntary clients. Subst Use Misuse 1996;31:895–926.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50