Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 53-72 , 1 June 2002

The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: a meta-analysis of comparison group studies

  • Michael L. Prendergast

      Affiliations

    • Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center, Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, 11050 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 150, Los Angeles, CA 90025, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1-310-445-0874; fax: +1-310-312-0559
    • ,
  • Deborah Podus

      Affiliations

    • Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center, Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, 11050 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 150, Los Angeles, CA 90025, USA
    • ,
  • Eunice Chang

      Affiliations

    • Prescription Solutions, Mail Stop LC07-286, 3515 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, USA
    • ,
  • Darren Urada

      Affiliations

    • Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center, Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, 11050 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 150, Los Angeles, CA 90025, USA

Received 9 July 2001 ,Revised 15 January 2002 ,Accepted 21 January 2002.

References 

  1. Andrews DA, Zinger I, Hoge RD, Bonta J, Gendreau P, Cullen FT. Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology. 1990;28:369–404
  2. Anglin MD, Hser Y-I. Treatment of drug abuse. In:  Tonry M,  Wilson JQ editor. Drugs and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1990;p. 393–460
  3. Apsler, R., 1994. Is drug abuse treatment effective? American Enterprise, March/April, 46–53.
  4. Apsler R, Harding WM. In: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Drug Abuse Treatment: Current Status and Recommendations for Future Research. In Background Papers on Drug Abuse Financing and Services Research (NIDA Drug Abuse Services Research Series 1). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1991;p. 58–81
  5. Bangert-Drowns RL. Review of developments in meta-analytic method. Psychol. Bull. 1986;99:388–399
  6. Begg CB. Publication bias. In:  Cooper H,  Hedges LV editor. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994;p. 399–409
  7. Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J. Nalt. Cancer Inst. 1989;81:107–115
  8. Bennett WJ, DiIulio J, Walter JP. Body Count: Moral Poverty…and How to Win America's War Against Crime and Drugs. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1996;
  9. Berg WE. Evaluation of community-based drug abuse treatment programs: a review of the research literature. In:  Freeman EM editors. The Addiction Process: Effective Social Work Approaches. New York: Longman; 1992;p. 81–95
  10. Brewer DD, Catalano RF, Haggerty K, Gainey RR, Fleming CB. A meta-analysis of predictors of continued drug use during and after treatment for opiate addiction. Addiction. 1998;93:73–92
  11. Brown BS. Treatment of non-opiate dependency: Issues and outcomes. In:  Smart RG,  Glaser FB,  Israel Y, et al. editor. Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems. 8:New York: Plenum Press; 1984;
  12. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000, November 29. Criminal Offenders Statistics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved December 27, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#data.
  13. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. second ed.. New York: Academic Press; 1988;
  14. Cole SG, James LR. A revised treatment typology based on the DARP. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1975;2:37–50
  15. Cole SG, Waterson O. A treatment typology for drug abuse in the DARP: 1971–1972 admissions. In:  Sells SB,  Simpson DD editor. The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Treatment. 3:Cambridge, MA: Ballinger; 1976;p. 201–252
  16. Cooper HM. The Integrative Research Review: A Systematic Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1984;
  17. Cooper HM. Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. second ed.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1989;
  18. In:  Cooper HM,  Hedges LV editor. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994;
  19. In:  Cooper JR,  Altman F,  Brown BS,  Czechowicz D editor. Research on the Treatment of Narcotics Addiction: State of the Art (NIDA Treatment Research Monograph). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, US Department of Health and Human Services; 1983;
  20. Crits-Christoph P, Siqueland L. Psychosocial treatment for drug abuse: selected review and recommendations for national health care. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 1996;53:749–756
  21. De Leon G, Staines G, Sacks S. Passages: a therapeutic community oriented day treatment model for methadone maintained clients. J. Drug Issues. 1997;27:341–366
  22. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. Royal Stat. Soc. 1997;39:1–38
  23. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–872
  24. Eysenck H. An exercise in mega-silliness. Am. Psychol. 1978;33:517
  25. Farabee D, Fredlund E. Self-reported drug use among recently admitted jail inmates: Estimating prevalence and treatment needs. Subst. Use Misuse. 1996;31:423–435
  26. Gerstein DR, Harwood HJ. Treating Drug Problems. 1. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990;
  27. Glanz M, Klawansky S, McAullife W, Chalmers T. Methadone versus l-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM) in the treatment of opiate addiction: a meta-analysis of the randomized, controlled trials. Am. J. Addict. 1997;6:339–349
  28. Glass GV, McGaw B, Smith ML. Meta-Analysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1981;
  29. Gresham FM, Gansle KA, Noell GN, Cohen S, Rosenblum S. Treatment integrity of school-based behavioral intervention studies: 1980–1990. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 1993;22(2):254–272
  30. Griffith JD, Rowan-Szal GA, Roark RR, Simpson DD. Contingency management in outpatient methadone treatment: a meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;58(1–2):55–66
  31. Hansen WB. Pilot test results comparing the all star program with seventh grade D.A.R.E.: program integrity and mediating variable analysis. Subst. Use Misuse. 1996;31:1359–1377
  32. Harrison L. The validity of self-reported data on drug use. J. Drug Issues. 1995;25:91–111
  33. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 1985;
  34. Hubbard RL. Evaluation and treatment outcome. In:  Lowinson JH,  Ruiz P,  Millman RB,  Langrod JG editor. Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook. second ed.. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1992;p. 596–611
  35. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1990;
  36. Institute of Medicine, 1990. Broadening the Base of Treatment for Alcohol Problems. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
  37. Kleber HD. Treatment of drug dependence: what works. Int. Rev. Psychiatry. 1989;1:81–100
  38. Krauthammer, C., 1997. Drug-treatment hustle. Washington Post, February 20, 1997.
  39. Landry MJ. Overview of Addiction Treatment Effectiveness. Rockville, MD: Officer of Applied Statistics, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 1995;
  40. Lipsey MW. Juvenile delinquency treatment: a meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In:  Cook TD, et al. editor. Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1992;p. 83–127
  41. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: confirmation from meta-analysis. Am. Psychologist. 1993;48:1181–1209
  42. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Reply to comments on Lipsey and Wilson 1993. Am. Psychol. 1995;50:113–115
  43. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. In:  Loeber R,  Farrington DP editor. Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998;
  44. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley; 1987;
  45. Marsch LA. The efficacy of methadone maintenance interventions in reducing illicit opiate use, HIV risk behaviors and criminality: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 1998;93(4):515–532
  46. McLellan AT, O'Brien CP, Metzger D, Alterman AI, Cornish J, Urschel H. How effective is substance abuse treatment: compared to what. In:  O'Brien CP,  Jaffe JH editor. Addictive States. New York: Raven Press; 1992;p. 231–252
  47. McLellan AT, Woody GE, Metzger D, McKay J, Durrell J, Alterman AI, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of addiction treatments: reasonable expectations, appropriate comparisons. Milbank Quart. 1996;74(1):51–85
  48. Messina N, Wish ED, Nemes S, Wraight B. Correlates of underreporting of post-discharge cocaine use among therapeutic community clients. J. Drug Issues. 2000;30:119–132
  49. Miller N, Pollock V. Meta-analytic synthesis for theory development. In:  Cooper H,  Hedges LV editor. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994;p. 457–483
  50. National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, 1990. Treatment works: The tragic cost of undervaluing treatment in the “drug war”. NASADAD, Washington.
  51. National Institute on Drug Abuse and Office for Treatment Improvement, 1991. Uniform program reporting: Guidelines for providers of alcohol and other drug abuse treatment services. National Institute on Drug Abuse and Office for Treatment Improvement, Rockville, MD.
  52. Nurius PS, Yeaton WH. Research synthesis reviews: an illustrated critique of ‘hidden’ judgments, choices, and compromises. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 1987;7:695–714
  53. Pearson FS, Lipton DS. A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections-based treatments for drug abuse. Prison J. 1999;79:384–410
  54. Pigott TD. Methods for handling missing data in research synthesis. In:  Cooper HM,  Hedges LH editor. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994;p. 163–176
  55. Prendergast M, Podus D, Chang E. Program factors and treatment outcome in drug dependence treatment: an examination using meta-analysis. Subst. Use Misuse. 2000;35(12–14):1931–1965
  56. Presby S. Overly broad categories obscure important differences between therapies. Am. Psychologist. 1978;33:514–516
  57. Rosenthal R. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 1979;86:638–641
  58. Rosenthal R. Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research (Revised Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991;
  59. Rosenthal R. Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychol. Bull. 1995;118:183–192
  60. Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. A note on percent variance explained as a measure of the importance of effects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1979;9:395–396
  61. Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Comparing effect sizes of independent studies. Psychol. Bull. 1982;92:500–504
  62. Salend, S.J., 1984. Therapy outcome research: threats to treatment integrity. Behav. Mod. 8, 211–222.
  63. Schafer J. norm (Version 2.02 for windows 95/98/NT) [Computer software]. University Park: Department of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University; 1999;
  64. Sharpe D. Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 1997;17:881–901
  65. Sisk JE, Hatziandreu EJ, Hughes R. The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Treatment: Implications for Controlling AIDS/HIV Infection (AIDS-Related Issues Background Paper 6; OTA-BP-H-73). Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress; 1990;
  66. Slavin RE. Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educ. Res. 1986;15:5–11
  67. Smith ML, Glass GV, Miller TI. The Benefits of Psychotherapy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1980;
  68. Sorensen JL, Copeland AL. Drug abuse treatment as an HIV prevention strategy: a review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;59:17–31
  69. Sorensen JL, Acampora AP, Trier M, Gold M. From maintenance to abstinence in a therapeutic community: follow-up outcomes. J. Psychoactive Drugs. 1987;19:345–351
  70. Stanton MD, Shadish WR. Outcome, attrition, and family-couples treatment for drug abuse: a meta-analysis and review of the controlled, comparative studies. Psychol. Bull. 1997;122:170–191
  71. Tobler NS. Meta-analysis of adolescent drug prevention programs: results of the 1993 meta-analysis. In:  Bukoski WJ editors. Meta-Analysis of Drug Abuse Prevention Programs (NIDA Research Monograph 170). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1997;p. 5–68
  72. Tonks A. Registering clinical trials. Br. Med. J. 1999;319:1565–1568
  73. Wells EA, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF. Choosing drug use measures for treatment outcome studies. I. The influence of measurement approach on treatment results. Int. J. Addict. 1988;23:851–873
  74. Wells EA, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF. Choosing drug use measures for treatment outcome studies. II. Timing baseline and follow-up measurement. Int. J. Addict. 1988;23:875–885
  75. Yeaton WH, Sechrest L. Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: strength, integrity, and effectiveness. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1981;49:156–167

☆ Readers interested in the codebook used for studies included in this meta-analysis can view it on the journal internet home page at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/drugalcdegsuppmat/.

PII: S0376-8716(02)00014-5

Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Volume 67, Issue 1 , Pages 53-72 , 1 June 2002

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution