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。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在这篇文章中,我们研究了物质使用障碍(SUD)治疗途径在住院和门诊患者中是否存在差异。方法:我们分析了2010-2019年智利接受SUD治疗的84,755名成年人(年龄≥18岁)的回顾性队列,通过基数匹配创建了11,226对门诊和住院治疗的可比较样本。我们使用了一个九状态多状态模型,根据基线治疗结果(即完成与未完成)从入院到第三次再入院对再入院进行分层。我们在三个月、一年、三年和五年的随访中估计了转移概率和在各州停留的时间。敏感性分析测试了不同的模型规格和估计的e值。结果:住院患者(与门诊患者相比)有更大的治疗完成概率(三个月时的差异;3.4% [95% CI: 2.9%, 3.9%]),治疗保持时间更长(例如,三个月时延长1.6天,95% CI: 0.8, 2.3)。无论基线治疗结果如何,住院患者与门诊患者的首次再入院概率更高(例如,三个月差异:完成基线治疗的患者为5.7% [95% CI: 4.4%, 7.0%],未完成基线治疗的患者为8.0% [95% CI: 6.7, 9.3%])。第三次再入院概率仅在基线治疗不完全的住院患者中较高(至少3.7%;95% CI: 0.2%, 1年时为7.3%)。结论:基线时住院的患者在治疗不完全的患者中更有可能经历第二次治疗和第三次再入院。研究结果强调了完成初始SUD治疗以减少再入院的重要性。住院治疗可能需要额外的策略来防止再入院。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.30%
发文量
184
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信