TY - JOUR
T1 - Beliefs about the empirical support of drug abuse treatment interventions
T2 - A survey of outpatient treatment providers
AU - Benishek, Lois A.
AU - Kirby, Kimberly C.
AU - Dugosh, Karen Leggett
AU - Padovano, Alicia
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by a Pennsylvania Department of Health Formula Grant ( PDH #4100025919 ). The PDH had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
PY - 2010/3
Y1 - 2010/3
N2 - This study assessed substance abuse treatment providers' beliefs about empirically supported treatments (ESTs) to determine if providing information about empirical support for interventions would change beliefs. Treatment providers (N= 136) completed an interview regarding five interventions with varied empirical support: contingency management (CM), motivational interviewing (MI), relapse prevention (RP), 12-step approaches (TSA), and verbal confrontation (VC). Participants then read primers describing empirical support for each intervention prior to completing a repeat interview. Overall, providers reported positive beliefs about ESTs. Baseline beliefs about empirical support for each intervention were inflated relative to that of expert raters except for CM. After reading the primers, beliefs about efficacy changed in the direction of the experts for all interventions except MI, but continued to be inflated except for CM. Willingness to utilize interventions increased for RP, MI, and CM and decreased for TSA and VC, but remained higher than warranted by empirical support.
AB - This study assessed substance abuse treatment providers' beliefs about empirically supported treatments (ESTs) to determine if providing information about empirical support for interventions would change beliefs. Treatment providers (N= 136) completed an interview regarding five interventions with varied empirical support: contingency management (CM), motivational interviewing (MI), relapse prevention (RP), 12-step approaches (TSA), and verbal confrontation (VC). Participants then read primers describing empirical support for each intervention prior to completing a repeat interview. Overall, providers reported positive beliefs about ESTs. Baseline beliefs about empirical support for each intervention were inflated relative to that of expert raters except for CM. After reading the primers, beliefs about efficacy changed in the direction of the experts for all interventions except MI, but continued to be inflated except for CM. Willingness to utilize interventions increased for RP, MI, and CM and decreased for TSA and VC, but remained higher than warranted by empirical support.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77649184977&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77649184977&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.10.013
DO - 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.10.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 19959299
AN - SCOPUS:77649184977
SN - 0376-8716
VL - 107
SP - 202
EP - 208
JO - Drug and Alcohol Dependence
JF - Drug and Alcohol Dependence
IS - 2-3
ER -