My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2: Medication-Assisted Therapy, 2010-2013 [United States]

Version
v1
Resource Type
Dataset : administrative records data, survey data
Creator
  • Friedmann, Peter (Rhode Island Hospital, and Brown University)
  • Prendergast, Michael (University of California-Los Angeles)
  • Shafer, Michael (Arizona State University)
  • Frisman, Linda (University of Connecticut)
  • Visher, Christy (University of Delaware)
  • Leukefeld, Carl (University of Kentucky)
  • Sacks, Stanley (National Development and Research Institutes, Inc.)
  • Stein, Lyn (University of Rhode Island)
  • Knight, Kevin (Texas Christian University)
  • Belenko, Steven (Temple University)
  • Ducharme, Lori (United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse)
Other Title
  • Version 1 (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2016-02-02
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Assistance
Language
English
Free Keywords
alcohol; alcohol abuse; criminal justice programs; criminal justice system; drug abuse; drug treatment; drugs; intervention; medication assisted treatment; medications; organizational behavior; organizational change
Description
  • Abstract

    The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration. The Medication-Assisted Therapy (MAT) study focuses on implementing linkages to medication assisted treatment in correctional settings. During the study period community corrections staff engaged in training about addiction pharmacotherapies, while leadership in the corrections and treatment facilities engage in a joint strategic planning process to identify and resolve barriers to efficient flow of clients across the two systems. This study includes 28 datasets and over 1,400 variables. The first five datasets for this study contain data on the baseline characteristics of the treatment and corrections sites that participated in the study as well as the characteristics of the staff working at those facilities. Opinions about Medication Assisted Treatment surveys were administered to personnel at the participating corrections and treatment sites (D6). Data on Inter-organization Relations between Probation and Parole staff with Treatment Providers were also collected (DS7-DS18). Information was extracted from the charts of clients about their alcohol and opioid dependence as well as the referrals and treatment the clients received (DS19). Probation and parole officers and treatment providers were surveyed about monthly counts of referrals (DS20-DS21). During the study 10 staff members from the community corrections agency and local treatment providers where MAT services were available were nominated to participate in a Pharmacotherapy Exchange Council (PEC). PEC members were involved with strategic planning for implementing changes to improve the usage of Medication-Assisted Therapy. PEC members were surveyed several times throughout the study. PEC members completed surveys on how well the sites were adhering to the Organizational Linkages Intervention (OLI) process (DS22). Community corrections staff, PEC members and Connections Coordinators in the experimental group were surveyed about their perceptions of organizational benefits and costs associated with the MATICCE intervention (DS23). The PEC rated the Connections Coordinators (DS24)and the Connections Coordinators rate the PEC (DS25). PEC researchers completed surveys on how much of the OLI was completed (DS26) as well as what the sustainability of the changes made through the MATTICE project (DS27). The final dataset provides a key for who took the KPI (Key Performance Indicators) training and who was a PEC member (DS28).
  • Abstract

    The objective of this study was to leverage treatment services that already exist in the community. This means that the implementation strategy was not designed to promote the delivery of clinical services nor medication prescribing within or by probation and parole offices, but rather was targeted at facilitating linkages between organizations that, despite sharing the same clients, lack incentive to coordinate services, or otherwise do not view themselves as sharing a common mission.
  • Abstract

    Nine research centers partnered with stakeholder organizations to improve utilization of medical-assisted therapy. Each research center recruited two community corrections agencies that did not have overlapping administrative structures. The pairs of sites were used in a clustered randomized design experiment. One research center recruited a second pair of sites brining the total number of sites to 20. The sites' staff received a 3-hour medical assisted therapy. Next the experimental group of sites were assigned to received an Organization Linkage Intervention and were asked to nominate members of a "Pharmacotherapy Exchange Council" (PEC). The PEC went through a manualized strategic planning process with the end goal of facilitating inter-organization linkages and increase awareness about the effectiveness of Medication-assisted therapy.
  • Methods

    There are no weights associated with this study.
  • Methods

    ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Presence of Common Scales: Please review the scoring guides in the provided user guide.
  • Methods

    Response Rates: Part 1: CD 91.3 percent / CO 91.2 percent / TD 95.8 percent / TS 84.5 percent Part 2: 80.0 percent Part 3: 85.7 percent Part 4: Same as part 1 Part 5: N/A Part 6: Baseline 85.2 percent / 3 Month 80.5 percent / 12 Month 74.5 percent Part 7: 86.1 percent Part 8: 72.9 percent Part 9: 80.4 percent Part 10: 82.2 percent Part 11: 90.8 percent Part 12: 93.3 percent Part 13: 70.6 percent Part 14: 95.0 percent Part 15: 96.3 percent Part 16: 90.6 percent Part 17: 78.3 percent Part 18: 92.3 percent Part 19: N/A Part 20: 98.2 percent Part 21: 93.6 percent Part 22: 100 percent Part 23: 98.2 percent Part 24: 93.3 percent Part 25: 99.3 percent Part 26: 100 percent Part 27: 100 percent Part 28: N/A
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics - Merged TS, TD, CS, CD
    • DS2: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics - Executive Corrections
    • DS3: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics - Executive Treatment
    • DS4: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics - Merged Demographics TS, TD, CS, CD
    • DS5: Tear Off Cover Sheet - Demographics
    • DS6: Opinions About Medication Assisted Treatment
    • DS7: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): Probation/Parole Rating of Treatment Provider - Baseline
    • DS8: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): Probation/Parole Rating of Treatment Provider - 12 Month
    • DS9: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): Treatment Provider Rating of Probation/Parole - Baseline
    • DS10: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): Treatment Provider Rating of Probation/Parole - 12 Month
    • DS11: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): Probation/Parole Rating of TASC - Baseline
    • DS12: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): Probation/Parole Rating of TASC - 12 Month
    • DS13: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): TASC Rating of Probation/Parole - Baseline
    • DS14: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): TASC Rating of Probation/Parole - 12 Month
    • DS15: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): Treatment Provider Rating of TASC - Baseline
    • DS16: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): Treatment Provider Rating of TASC - 12 Month
    • DS17: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): TASC Rating of Treatment Provider - Baseline
    • DS18: Interorganizational Relationships (IOR): TASC Treatment Provider Rating of TASC - 12 Month
    • DS19: Agency Records Data Extraction Form
    • DS20: Monthly Count of Referrals: Probation/Parole Survey
    • DS21: Monthly Count of Referrals: Treatment Provider Survey
    • DS22: Medication Assisted Treatment in Community Correctional Environments (MATICCE) - Fidelity Measure
    • DS23: Satisfaction with the MATICCE Intervention
    • DS24: Working Alliance Between Connections Coordinator and Pharmacotherapy Exchange Council A: Ratings by the Members of the Pharmacotherapy Exchange Council
    • DS25: Working Alliance Between Connections Coordinator and Pharmacotherapy Exchange Council B: Ratings by the Connections Coordinator
    • DS26: MATTICE Protocol - RC Involvement Checklist
    • DS27: MATTICE Sustainability Measures
    • DS28: KPI Training Completion and PEC Membership
Temporal Coverage
  • 2010 / 2013
    Time period: 2010--2013
Geographic Coverage
  • Arizona
  • California
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Kentucky
  • Maryland
  • Pennsylvania
  • Puerto Rico
  • Rhode Island
  • Texas
  • United States
Sampled Universe
Probation, parole, and treatment personnel in the United States 2010-2013.
Sampling
All applicable personnel at each study site were invited to participate.
Collection Mode
  • record abstracts, on-site questionnaire

    ICPSR edited variable labels to provide users with more information and increase comparability across variables sets and datasets.

    ICPSR performed recodes on select variables to protect respondent confidentiality. See the "Processing/Confidentiality Notes" in each codebook for further details.

Availability
Download
This study is freely available to the general public via web download.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 34988 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)

Update Metadata: 2016-02-02 | Issue Number: 1 | Registration Date: 2016-02-02

Friedmann, Peter; Prendergast, Michael; Shafer, Michael; Frisman, Linda; Visher, Christy et. al. (2016): Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2: Medication-Assisted Therapy, 2010-2013 [United States]. Version 1. Version: v1. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34988.v1