Andrés González-Santa Cruz, Pia M Mauro, Jaime C Sapag, Silvia S Martins, José Ruiz-Tagle, Jorge Gaete, Magdalena Cerdá, Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia
{"title":"在一项以登记为基础的国家回顾性队列研究中,住院治疗与门诊治疗对物质使用障碍再入院风险的影响。","authors":"Andrés González-Santa Cruz, Pia M Mauro, Jaime C Sapag, Silvia S Martins, José Ruiz-Tagle, Jorge Gaete, Magdalena Cerdá, Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia","doi":"10.1007/s00127-025-02865-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In this article, we studied whether pathways in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment differ among people admitted to residential versus ambulatory settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 84,755 adults (ages ≥ 18) in Chilean SUD treatment during 2010-2019, creating a comparable sample of 11,226 pairs in ambulatory and residential treatment through cardinality matching. We used a nine-state multistate model, stratifying readmissions by baseline treatment outcome (i.e., completion vs. noncompletion) from admission to the third readmission. We estimated transition probabilities and lengths of stay in states at three-month, one-year, three-year, and five-year follow-ups. Sensitivity analyses tested different model specifications and estimated E-values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients in residential settings (vs. ambulatory) had greater treatment completion probabilities (difference at three months; 3.4% [95% CI: 2.9%, 3.9%]), and longer treatment retention (e.g., 1.6 days longer at three months, 95% CI: 0.8, 2.3). Patients in residential vs. ambulatory settings had higher first readmission probabilities regardless of baseline treatment outcome (e.g., three-month difference: 5.7% if completed baseline [95% CI: 4.4%, 7.0%] and 8.0% if did not complete baseline [95% CI: 6.7, 9.3%]). Third readmission probabilities were higher only among patients in residential settings with an incomplete baseline treatment (at least 3.7%; 95% CI: 0.2%, 7.3% at 1-year).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients in residential settings at baseline were more likely to experience a second treatment and a third readmission among patients with incomplete treatments. Findings underscore the importance of completing initial SUD treatments to reduce readmissions. Residential treatments might require additional strategies to prevent readmissions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49510,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of residential versus ambulatory treatment for substance use disorders on readmission risk in a register-based national retrospective cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Andrés González-Santa Cruz, Pia M Mauro, Jaime C Sapag, Silvia S Martins, José Ruiz-Tagle, Jorge Gaete, Magdalena Cerdá, Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00127-025-02865-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In this article, we studied whether pathways in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment differ among people admitted to residential versus ambulatory settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 84,755 adults (ages ≥ 18) in Chilean SUD treatment during 2010-2019, creating a comparable sample of 11,226 pairs in ambulatory and residential treatment through cardinality matching. We used a nine-state multistate model, stratifying readmissions by baseline treatment outcome (i.e., completion vs. noncompletion) from admission to the third readmission. We estimated transition probabilities and lengths of stay in states at three-month, one-year, three-year, and five-year follow-ups. Sensitivity analyses tested different model specifications and estimated E-values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients in residential settings (vs. ambulatory) had greater treatment completion probabilities (difference at three months; 3.4% [95% CI: 2.9%, 3.9%]), and longer treatment retention (e.g., 1.6 days longer at three months, 95% CI: 0.8, 2.3). Patients in residential vs. ambulatory settings had higher first readmission probabilities regardless of baseline treatment outcome (e.g., three-month difference: 5.7% if completed baseline [95% CI: 4.4%, 7.0%] and 8.0% if did not complete baseline [95% CI: 6.7, 9.3%]). Third readmission probabilities were higher only among patients in residential settings with an incomplete baseline treatment (at least 3.7%; 95% CI: 0.2%, 7.3% at 1-year).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients in residential settings at baseline were more likely to experience a second treatment and a third readmission among patients with incomplete treatments. Findings underscore the importance of completing initial SUD treatments to reduce readmissions. Residential treatments might require additional strategies to prevent readmissions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-025-02865-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-025-02865-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of residential versus ambulatory treatment for substance use disorders on readmission risk in a register-based national retrospective cohort.
Purpose: In this article, we studied whether pathways in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment differ among people admitted to residential versus ambulatory settings.
Methods: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 84,755 adults (ages ≥ 18) in Chilean SUD treatment during 2010-2019, creating a comparable sample of 11,226 pairs in ambulatory and residential treatment through cardinality matching. We used a nine-state multistate model, stratifying readmissions by baseline treatment outcome (i.e., completion vs. noncompletion) from admission to the third readmission. We estimated transition probabilities and lengths of stay in states at three-month, one-year, three-year, and five-year follow-ups. Sensitivity analyses tested different model specifications and estimated E-values.
Results: Patients in residential settings (vs. ambulatory) had greater treatment completion probabilities (difference at three months; 3.4% [95% CI: 2.9%, 3.9%]), and longer treatment retention (e.g., 1.6 days longer at three months, 95% CI: 0.8, 2.3). Patients in residential vs. ambulatory settings had higher first readmission probabilities regardless of baseline treatment outcome (e.g., three-month difference: 5.7% if completed baseline [95% CI: 4.4%, 7.0%] and 8.0% if did not complete baseline [95% CI: 6.7, 9.3%]). Third readmission probabilities were higher only among patients in residential settings with an incomplete baseline treatment (at least 3.7%; 95% CI: 0.2%, 7.3% at 1-year).
Conclusion: Patients in residential settings at baseline were more likely to experience a second treatment and a third readmission among patients with incomplete treatments. Findings underscore the importance of completing initial SUD treatments to reduce readmissions. Residential treatments might require additional strategies to prevent readmissions.
期刊介绍:
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology is intended to provide a medium for the prompt publication of scientific contributions concerned with all aspects of the epidemiology of psychiatric disorders - social, biological and genetic.
In addition, the journal has a particular focus on the effects of social conditions upon behaviour and the relationship between psychiatric disorders and the social environment. Contributions may be of a clinical nature provided they relate to social issues, or they may deal with specialised investigations in the fields of social psychology, sociology, anthropology, epidemiology, health service research, health economies or public mental health. We will publish papers on cross-cultural and trans-cultural themes. We do not publish case studies or small case series. While we will publish studies of reliability and validity of new instruments of interest to our readership, we will not publish articles reporting on the performance of established instruments in translation.
Both original work and review articles may be submitted.