opposite. Excuse, have thought and haveSt Martin 2019: Bedeutung – was wird am Martinstag gefeiert?

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Ressortforschung

Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS). Die DSHS ist das nationale Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland​. Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik liefert Informationen zur Arbeit in den ambulanten und stationären Suchthilfeeinrichtungen. Einleitung. Dr. Tim Pfeiffer-Gerschel. PD Dr. Larissa Schwarzkopf. Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS) ist ein bundesweites. Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS) ist ein nationales Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland. Pfeiffer-Gerschel, T. et al. Herausgeber: DBDD, München. Suchthilfe in Deutschland Jahresbericht der Deutschen Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS).

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik

Die Daten der bundesweiten Deutschen Suchthilfestatistik. (DSHS) werden j hrlich von ambulanten und station ren. Einrichtungen der Suchtkrankenhilfe. Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS) ist ein nationales Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland. Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS). Die DSHS ist das nationale Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland​.

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Video

Remschmidt, F. Warnke Hrsg. Ein integratives Lehrbuch für die Praxis Thieme, Stuttgart. Scalia Tomba, G. Schäfer, A.

Schäfer, B. Schäufele, M. Scherbaum, N. Schnackenberg, K. Schneider, H. Schulte, B. Sonnenmoser, M. Für Jugendliche besonders riskant.

Deutsches Ärzteblatt 1 Sonntag, D. Soyka, M. Statistisches Bundesamt a , Diagnosedaten der Patienten und Patientinnen in Krankenhäusern einschl.

Sterbe- und Stundenfälle , Fachserie 12, Reihe 6. Statistisches Bundesamt b , Diagnosedaten der Patientinnen und Patienten in Krankenhäuser einschl.

Statistisches Bundesamt b , Rechtspflege - Strafvollzug - Demographische und kriminologische Merkmale der Strafgefangenen zum Stichtag Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.

Statistisches Bundesamt c , Verkehr - Verkehrsunfälle Dezember Stöver, H. Süss, B. Thomasius, R. Verthein, U.

Vogt, I. Wedekind, D. Werse, B. Wittchen, H. Inaugurated in Lisbon in , it is one of the EU's decentralised agencies.

EN Search. Advanced search. Studies used for the National report The following studies were amongst those used for the German National report.

Motivational intervention in patients dependent on medical drugs in hospitals Die Drogenbeauftragte der Bundesregierung, Estimate of public expenditure in the area of illicit drugs in Germany Mostardt et al.

Overview of the development of heroin policy in Germany Vogt and Schmid, Hamburger Schulbus — School survey Baumgärtner, Treatment of mental disorders in children and adolescents Sack et al.

Young people at risk Sonnenmoser, Diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders due to cannabis use Thomasius and Stolle, b.

Outpatient care — Children and the dangers of addiction Küstner et al. Improve addiction treatment through evidence-based knowledge Perkonigg et al.

Explanatory models of addictive behaviour among native German, Russian-German, and Turkish youth Penka et al. A typology of cannabis-related problems among individuals with repeated illegal drug use in the first three decades of life: Evidence for heterogeneity and different treatment needs Wittchen et al.

Medical drug abuse among clients at outpatient addiction counselling facilities in Germany Casati et al. Feasibility and outcome of substitution treatment of heroin-dependent patients in specialised substitution centres and primary care facilities in Germany Wittchen et al.

This calculation was based on treatment, police, and mortality data Using these approaches, comparative estimates for , , and indicated a moderate increase in the number of opiate users The aim of this study was to estimate the number of individuals addicted to opioids in Germany and its individual federal states for the calendar year This estimate is based on substitution treatment registry data, data from inpatient and outpatient addiction care statistics, and counts in 5 low-threshold addiction care facilities.

We assume that all data was recorded inasmuch as all individuals addicted to opioids come into some form of contact with the addiction care system.

We draw a distinction between individuals who are documented in the addiction care system and those who come into contact with the system but only receive care that is not documented.

Although there are no diagnoses for individuals with no case documentation, it can nevertheless be assumed from care they have received, e.

Double entries resulting from the same code being used for 2 individuals were ruled out by consulting the treating physicians.

The DSHS data was used to estimate how many individuals were addicted to opioids and did not undergo substitution treatment in addiction care facilities.

The included facilities are of the following types, as defined in DSHS:. Unlike the substitution treatment registry, the DSHS records treatment episodes rather than individuals and reports only aggregate data, so double entries of individuals cannot be checked.

Individuals may be counted twice if they are recorded at both inpatient and outpatient facilities. Because the DSHS does not cover all addiction care facilities, data was extrapolated to the total number of addiction care facilities Figure; see eMethods for a detailed description.

Individuals addicted to opioids are not recorded in the DSHS if they attend a low-threshold facility with no case documentation and use its services, e.

In order to estimate the size of this group as a proportion of all individuals addicted to opioids, clients at 5 selected facilities in Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich, and Nuremberg were routinely surveyed, for example during needle exchange, at contact points, or at mobile addiction care services.

The use of addiction care facilities was surveyed between July and September as part of regular contact.

Facilities ruled out double entries using, for example, personal acquaintance, lists of pseudonyms, or statement of characteristics.

Clients with insufficient knowledge of German were largely handled by professionals with knowledge of the relevant language e.

Farsi, Russian, Turkish. The facility type was used as control variable. To estimate the number of individuals addicted to opioids, the estimated percentage of individuals not undergoing substitution treatment and with no case documentation NST was added to the number of individuals not undergoing substitution treatment estimated on the basis of the DSHS data AC.

These steps were taken for men and for women. These figures were used to calculate a percentage for each federal state on the basis of the reported total number.

A total of 0. The number of individuals addicted to opioids and not undergoing substitution treatment was obtained from the DSHS data in line with the following characteristics:.

A total of individuals addicted to opioids were recorded in routine documentation at the 5 locations.

It was estimated that 9. Estimated rates for federal states range from 0. The estimated number of individuals addicted to opioids in Germany in is based on the following:.

There are no current figures for Germany or its federal states except for this estimate and one study in Berlin Comparisons with earlier estimates of the numbers of individuals addicted to opioids in Berlin are limited by the fact that this evaluation uses only national data, not regional data.

If it were, the number of individuals addicted to opioids who did not undergo substitution treatment and were not recorded would be higher than estimated here in federal city states and those federal states with large cities and a large drug scene.

In contrast, the estimates for other federal states would be slightly overestimated. However, the regional distribution of individuals addicted to opioids who do not undergo substitution treatment and are not registered may also be subject to effects other than those assumed here.

Our estimates for federal states are therefore merely approximate. In our study, the number of individuals addicted to opioids currently undergoing substitution treatment was Thirdly, there is no direct influence of the CMRE on the primary outcome of our trial; this influence is mediated via the improved linkage of the patients to the Employment Agencies.

Fourthly, in the light of the well-known association of re-integration to competitive work and the decrease of substance consumption and relapse rates, effects of CMRE on abstinence should not be expected if vocational re-integration is not improved.

Although studies showed a high congruence between self-reports and drug detection tests in urine [ 19 , 20 ], we cannot exclude the option that our results are biased in this respect by socially desired response behaviour.

Fifthly, we can only speculate that results established in the post-interventional period of our study are biased by the higher drop-out rate in the SC group compared to the CMRE group.

Implications of our trial for further research would be to improve study designs in this field up to the more robust methodological level of simple randomisation, to optimise practical aspects of CMRE provision, and to develop a more profound understanding of factors potentially mediating the effects of CMRE.

We thank the participating patients and their next-of-kin. Funders were not involved in data collection, access, analysis, interpretation and writing of the report.

SuS performed the statistical analyses. SuS and TK wrote the drafts. SuS corresponded with the study authors.

All authors revised the drafts and approved the final manuscript. Written informed consent was obtained from all eligible patients prior to their inclusion in the study.

All patient-related data were de-identified. Additional file 1: Figure S1. JPG kb. Thomas W. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.

BMC Psychiatry. Published online Aug 5. Kallert 5. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer.

Corresponding author. Received Feb 12; Accepted Aug 2. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Associated Data Data Availability Statement The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional file.

Abstract Background Substance use disorders are associated with unemployment. Results One hundred sixty patients were allocated into the CMRE group and patients into the control group.

Conclusions Compared to SC, the additional specific CMRE intervention did not result in superior effects on return to work rates, abstinence, satisfaction with life, and housing and precarious financial situation.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article doi Background Problematic substance use is associated with unemployment, since substance use disorders may elicit absence from work and unemployment but, in reverse, unemployment may lead to substance use disorders [ 1 ].

Methods Study period, sites, and inclusion criteria The trial was conducted from September to September Randomisation procedure The trial used a quasi-randomised approach of allocating patients to the two study groups.

Intervention: employment-focused case management The study compared a generalist case management approach focused on return to competitive employment CMRE - Case Management to improve Return to Employment to standard care SC.

Methodological approach for analysis Binary variables are reported using absolute and relative frequencies. Open in a separate window.

Table 1 Comparison of baseline characteristics. Table 2 Impact of intervention on employment. Discussion This study found that the CMRE was not superior compared to standard care SC in its effect on return to work rates of patients with substance use disorders within a 2-years-period after inpatient rehabilitation.

Conclusions Implications of our trial for further research would be to improve study designs in this field up to the more robust methodological level of simple randomisation, to optimise practical aspects of CMRE provision, and to develop a more profound understanding of factors potentially mediating the effects of CMRE.

Acknowledgements We thank the participating patients and their next-of-kin. Availability of data and materials The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional file.

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Consent for publication Not applicable. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and GCP-guidelines.

Additional files Additional file 1: Figure S1. References 1. Henkel D. Unemployment and substance use: a review of the literature — Curr Drug Abuse Rev.

Effektivität der stationären abstinenzorientierten Drogenrehabilitation - FVS-Katamnese des Entlassjahrgangs von Fachkliniken für Drogenrehabilitation.

Sucht Aktuell. Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Veränderung des Erwerbsstatus von zu Beginn der stationären Rehabilitation erwerbslosen Suchtrehabilitanden - differenziert nach Geschlecht [Tabellenbände] Effectiveness of different models of case management for substance-abusing populations.

J Psychoactive Drugs. The efficacy of case management with persons who have substance abuse problems: a three-level meta-analysis of outcomes.

J Consult Clin Psychol. Enhancing substance abuse treatment with case management. Its impact on employment. J Subst Abuse Treat. An integrated drug counseling and employment intervention for methadone clients.

A randomized trial of probation case management for drug-involved women offenders. Crime Delinq. Stopp J. Treatment demand indicator TDI - Standard protocol 3.

Deutscher Kerndatensatz zur Dokumentation im Bereich der Suchtkrankenhilfe. Losses to follow-up in longitudinal psychiatric research.

Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. Kallert TW.

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Die häufigsten Fragen

Dauber, H. Beender : Dieser Lauf enthält lediglich jene Betreuungsepisoden, die im Laufe des jeweiligen Jahres abgeschlossen wurden. Themen Forschungsbereiche Projekte. Grundsätzlich lassen sich auch mehrere Filter kombinieren z. Diese Kurzberichte basieren meist auf Sonderläufen. Es liegen also keine personenbezogenen, gesundheitsbezogenen und damit besonders schutzbedürftigen Daten im Sinne der einschlägigen Datenschutzgesetze vor. Für einige Spezialauswertungen existieren zudem regionale Tabellenbände. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist perspektivisch read article Wechsel von einer segmentbezogenen Beteiligungsquote Anteil ambulante bzw. Dies führt zu einer Steigerung der Datenvalidität. , München. An alle Einrichtungen im Bereich der Suchtkrankenhilfe. Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik - Standardjahresauswertung Suchthilfestatistik BW – Landesstelle für Suchtfragen Da die Daten der Deutschen Suchthilfestatistik schon seit vielen Jahren erhoben werden, können. Die DSHS ist ein nationales Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland. Als Dokumentationssystem hat die Deutsche. Datenquelle: Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik für ambulante Einrichtungen. Kontakt: Ansprechpartner(in): Frau Dr. Dipl.-Psych. Barbara Braun. Die Daten der bundesweiten Deutschen Suchthilfestatistik. (DSHS) werden j hrlich von ambulanten und station ren. Einrichtungen der Suchtkrankenhilfe. Diese haben dann die Möglichkeit, Einrichtungen, die bis dato learn more here keine Daten geliefert haben, zur Teilnahme zu motivieren. Der idealtypische Zeitablauf dieses Prozesses ist in Tabelle 1 zusammengefasst. Die mit dem just click for source des KDS 3. Diese Informationen werden der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht. Erwerbssituation, Alter, Migrationshintergrund oder Aspekte des Betreuungsverlaufs z. Ergebnisse einer Online-Studie. Die einzelnen aggregierten Ergebnisdateien werden einrichtungsweise in einem Tabellenband gebündelt und elektronisch an die GSDA übermittelt. Jahr: Autoren: Hibell, B. Diese sind bedingt durch die Zusammenfassung der einzelnen Fälle anonymisiert. Learn more here DSHS stellt eines der umfassendsten und differenziertesten Systeme zur Datenerhebung im suchtbezogenen Beratungs- und Behandlungskontext auf europäischer Ebene dar. Diese fallweise Betrachtung ist im Article source durchaus üblich z. Diese Kurzberichte basieren meist auf Sonderläufen. Die mit dem Check this out des KDS 3. Jahr: Autoren: Künzel, J. Hierbei differenziert der KDS 3. Die DSHS stellt Deutschland Argentinien der umfassendsten und differenziertesten Systeme zur Datenerhebung im suchtbezogenen Beratungs- und Behandlungskontext auf europäischer Ebene dar. Zudem führt die AG verschiedene https://cascadebarandgrill.co/gametwist-casino-online/der-ultimative-mann.php Suchthilfestatistiken durch, evaluiert zielgruppenspezifische Interventionen im Bereich von Abhängigkeitserkrankungen z. The CMRE was performed apologise, Spiele Dragon’S Reels - Video Slots Online agree Enlarge All figures. A total of 62 eligible patients were not included because the number of 15 patients to be included per month had already been reached. Compared to the group still participating in the study, patients lost at follow-up showed no statistically significant differences regarding age, gender or duration of unemployment at admission. München: Landesstelle Glücksspielsucht in Bayern Diese Kernprozesse werden im Folgenden näher beschrieben. Hierbei werden besonders häufig Diagnosen z. Fälle ab 60 Jahren mit einer alkoholbezogenen Hauptdiagnose. Herausgeber: Stockholm: CAN. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist perspektivisch der Wechsel von einer segmentbezogenen Beteiligungsquote Anteil ambulante bzw. Hierbei werden die Rückmeldungen der angeschriebenen Suchthilfeeinrichtungen zu Einrichtungstyp und Angebot bedarfsweise an systematische Veränderungen innerhalb https://cascadebarandgrill.co/casino-online-kostenlos/joker-mastercard-verifizieren.php KDS angepasst. Diese haben dann die Möglichkeit, Einrichtungen, die bis dato noch keine Daten geliefert haben, zur Teilnahme zu motivieren. Peter Https://cascadebarandgrill.co/gametwist-casino-online/arcade-games-online.php, Dr. Schätzung der Anzahl problematischer und pathologischer Glücksspielerinnen und Glücksspieler in Bayern. Our estimates for federal states are therefore merely approximate. Psychotherapy of addictions: an overview Bernow and Fehr, Linkage with follow-up services immediately after discharge. Is employment-focused case management effective for patients with substance use disorders? Thus, the participant and case manager developed a plan to access follow-up and social services. Many of those affected are given medical treatment for their mental comorbidities, but the pathological gambling is not mentioned. A total of 62 eligible patients were not Lg MГјnchen I because the number of 15 patients article source be included per month had already been https://cascadebarandgrill.co/online-casino-euro/bei-welchem-automatenspiel-gewinnt-man-am-meisten.php.

Comparisons with earlier estimates of the numbers of individuals addicted to opioids in Berlin are limited by the fact that this evaluation uses only national data, not regional data.

If it were, the number of individuals addicted to opioids who did not undergo substitution treatment and were not recorded would be higher than estimated here in federal city states and those federal states with large cities and a large drug scene.

In contrast, the estimates for other federal states would be slightly overestimated. However, the regional distribution of individuals addicted to opioids who do not undergo substitution treatment and are not registered may also be subject to effects other than those assumed here.

Our estimates for federal states are therefore merely approximate. In our study, the number of individuals addicted to opioids currently undergoing substitution treatment was Our estimate has a number of limitations.

Finally, it must be pointed out that individuals addicted to opioids who were incarcerated, in facilities for integration into society, or in acute care could not be included in the estimate, even though it can be assumed that there is great overlap with the data sources used.

Our estimate should therefore be treated as conservative. This estimate assumes that almost everyone addicted to opioids is in some kind of contact with the addiction care system.

However, the existence of a population of opioid users who could potentially be diagnosed with addiction and who cannot be counted among harm reduction service users cannot be ruled out.

These might include, for example, individuals who are integrated into society, who have the financial means to procure opioids, and who use opioids with no impact on society or damage to their health.

The overall scale of heroin and other opioid use has fallen in recent years, and opioid use seems to be less attractive to young people than stimulant use, for example This can be explained by stagnation of the prevalence of opioid addiction and a decline in its incidence.

At the same time, there is evidence in the literature of a decline in new cases of opioid-related disorders in Europe 27 — Consequently, prevalence is falling only in the long term, as substitution treatment has been rolled out comprehensively, leading to better survival and the ageing of the population of users as a whole.

However, the dramatic increase in opioid-related mortality observed in the USA in the last two decades in the context of liberal prescription of opioid-containing analgesics to patients with chronic, non-cancer-related pain 30 suggests that more attention must be paid to preventing possible iatrogenic opioid addiction disorders using appropriate countermeasures.

Estimating the number of individuals who have attended low-threshold facilities would have been impossible without the help of addiction care facility staff.

We would like to thank the following facilities and their employees for their support: Drob Inn St. Conflict of interest statement PD Dr.

Verthein has received reimbursement of conference fees and travel costs and lecture fees from Mundipharma GmbH.

Corresponding author: Prof. For eReferences please refer to: www. DOI: Enlarge All figures. Estimated numbers of individuals addicted to opioids by status substitution treatment, no substitution treatment, and no substitution treatment or case documentation.

Estimated total number of individuals addicted to opioids, population in , and rate of opioid addiction per inhabitants by federal state.

Lancet ; —74 CrossRef. Schäfer M: Opioide. Lancet ; —84 CrossRef. Drug Alcohol Depend ; —9 CrossRef. Groenemeyer A: Drogen, Drogenkonsum und Drogenabhängigkeit.

In: Albrecht G, Groenemeyer A eds. Wiesbaden: Springer ; —93 CrossRef. Sucht ; 43 Sonderheft 2 : S79—S Drogenabhängigen in Deutschland Anonymes Monitoring in den Praxen niedergelassener Ärzte.

München: Profil Bundesopiumstelle: Bericht zum Substitutionsregister Jahresbericht zur aktuellen Situation der Suchthilfe in Berlin in Vorbereitung.

Sucht ; —78 CrossRef. Statistisches Bundesamt Destatis : Bevölkerungsstand. Bevölkerung nach Altersgruppen, Familienstand und Religionszugehörigkeit.

Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt Destatis ; www. Berlin: Robert Koch Institut Statusbericht der Hamburger Basisdatendokumentation in der ambulanten Suchthilfe und der Eingliederungshilfe.

Hamburg: Bado e. Deutschland, Workbook Drogen. Suchtmed ; — Heroin Addict Relat Clin Probl ; 49— Lancet ; —4 CrossRef.

Ludwig Kraus, Dr. Nicki-Nils Seitz, Dr. Barbara Braun, Dr. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups.

Compared to the group still participating in the study, patients lost at follow-up showed no statistically significant differences regarding age, gender or duration of unemployment at admission.

The CMRE was performed for The number of contacts between the case manager and the participant was 16 7; 34 median; 10 th and 90 th percentile.

The mean contact time face-to-face or via telephone over the whole intervention period was A total of In addition, case managers realised 7 2; 21 median; 10th and 90th percentile contacts per participant with others than the participant e.

The most common contact persons were staff members from the regional Employment Agencies with At the months follow-up At months follow-up, this rate increased to An additional logistic regression assessed the statistical correlation of the amount of case management time per participant and return to work in the intervention group.

The results do not suggest dose-response effect. There was also no difference between the study groups concerning the duration of employment.

For those who had a job on the primary labour market, the mean number of months in employment in the CMRE group was 6.

There were no significant differences between groups in linkage with other services immediately after discharge, and in use of follow-up services at the months follow-up please see Additional file 1 : Figure S1 and Additional file 2 : Figure S2.

This study found that the CMRE was not superior compared to standard care SC in its effect on return to work rates of patients with substance use disorders within a 2-years-period after inpatient rehabilitation.

Further, CMRE did not show superior effects on abstinence, satisfaction with life, precarious housing situation, precarious financial situation, and duration of employment.

There was a significantly higher proportion in the CMRE group, however, which immediately after discharge linked with services of the Federal Employment Agency or Job Centres when compared to the SC group.

There were, however, no significant differences between groups in linkage with other services immediately after discharge, and in use of follow-up services at the months follow-up.

Thus, our results did not confirm the hypothesis that a CMRE approach might improve the return to work of persons with substance use disorders and could diminish their risk of drug use relapse.

Evaluating CMRE in a multi-site quasi-randomised trial presents several challenges, and this trial had its particular strengths and weaknesses.

Due to successful recruitment, implementation of a randomisation procedure resulting in no group differences at baseline assessment, and follow-up rates comparing favourably to those in similar studies in Germany [ 3 , 13 ], the trial significantly increased the existing evidence base especially in the field of employment-focused outcomes of substance use rehabilitation [ 6 ].

The trial made use of a methodological level up to the one more and more common in mental health services research [ 14 ], and increased this level, especially when compared to the pilot study in which the intervention was modelled and tested [ 10 ].

Further, the trial used standardised assessment instruments for most outcome domains, demonstrated the feasibility of implementing a manual-based case management intervention providing a close linking between inpatient substance rehabilitation and post-treatment Employment Agencies, and showed that CMRE had an effect on such linkage.

Thus, our findings of improved co-operation between rehabilitation services and Employment Agencies confirmed results reported by a previous study [ 15 ] on improved linkage with substance abuse treatment as a consequence of case management work.

At the post-intervention assessment after months, the drop-out rate in the control group was higher than in the intervention group.

These results indicate a potential effect of the CMRE on retention in the study program. This corresponds with findings of a meta-analysis indicating moderate improvements in utilization of substance abuse treatment and important auxiliary services, including retention in substance abuse and auxiliary services [ 6 ].

This suggests an only temporary effect of CMRE on retention in the study program. The CM approach used in our study might be classified as generalist CM, which is the most frequent approach assessed in trials on patients with substance use disorders [ 5 , 6 ].

In contrast to factors of success described in the literature when implementing such interventions [ 16 ], our approach was not provided by a CM team in each of the participating departments, and did not include the provision of direct services.

This could be seen as a potential to optimise our approach when modifying CMRE in the future. Further issues to be improved might be to reduce the high caseload of the case managers in our study, and to increase the rate of face-to-face-contacts above the level achieved in our study, although our approach already resulted in a high rate and time of contacts per participant.

Apart from such practical issues of CMRE provision, we could speculate on some other factors explaining our results that CMRE had no effect on return-to-work rates within a 2-years-follow-up period.

Firstly, we would like to point out that our findings are in line with results reported in a most recent meta-analysis on the efficacy of case management, which reported only weak effects on social inclusion [ 6 ].

Secondly, contextual factors like the recently significantly decreased unemployment rate in Eastern Germany from This might be due to the already optimised SC in Central Germany.

This procedure refers to already established special contracts with Employment Agencies aiming to re-integrate patients from substance use rehabilitation into competitive employment, and therefore might have also decreased the potential effects of the CMRE.

The impact of such factors is well established in studies identifying predictors of employment [ 8 ], and assessing vocational re-integration after medical rehabilitation of patients [ 18 ].

Thirdly, there is no direct influence of the CMRE on the primary outcome of our trial; this influence is mediated via the improved linkage of the patients to the Employment Agencies.

Fourthly, in the light of the well-known association of re-integration to competitive work and the decrease of substance consumption and relapse rates, effects of CMRE on abstinence should not be expected if vocational re-integration is not improved.

Although studies showed a high congruence between self-reports and drug detection tests in urine [ 19 , 20 ], we cannot exclude the option that our results are biased in this respect by socially desired response behaviour.

Fifthly, we can only speculate that results established in the post-interventional period of our study are biased by the higher drop-out rate in the SC group compared to the CMRE group.

Implications of our trial for further research would be to improve study designs in this field up to the more robust methodological level of simple randomisation, to optimise practical aspects of CMRE provision, and to develop a more profound understanding of factors potentially mediating the effects of CMRE.

We thank the participating patients and their next-of-kin. Funders were not involved in data collection, access, analysis, interpretation and writing of the report.

SuS performed the statistical analyses. SuS and TK wrote the drafts. SuS corresponded with the study authors.

All authors revised the drafts and approved the final manuscript. Written informed consent was obtained from all eligible patients prior to their inclusion in the study.

All patient-related data were de-identified. Additional file 1: Figure S1. JPG kb. Thomas W.

National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. BMC Psychiatry. Published online Aug 5. Kallert 5. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer.

Corresponding author. Received Feb 12; Accepted Aug 2. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Associated Data Data Availability Statement The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional file.

Abstract Background Substance use disorders are associated with unemployment. Results One hundred sixty patients were allocated into the CMRE group and patients into the control group.

Conclusions Compared to SC, the additional specific CMRE intervention did not result in superior effects on return to work rates, abstinence, satisfaction with life, and housing and precarious financial situation.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article doi Background Problematic substance use is associated with unemployment, since substance use disorders may elicit absence from work and unemployment but, in reverse, unemployment may lead to substance use disorders [ 1 ].

Methods Study period, sites, and inclusion criteria The trial was conducted from September to September Randomisation procedure The trial used a quasi-randomised approach of allocating patients to the two study groups.

Intervention: employment-focused case management The study compared a generalist case management approach focused on return to competitive employment CMRE - Case Management to improve Return to Employment to standard care SC.

Methodological approach for analysis Binary variables are reported using absolute and relative frequencies. Open in a separate window.

Table 1 Comparison of baseline characteristics. Table 2 Impact of intervention on employment. Discussion This study found that the CMRE was not superior compared to standard care SC in its effect on return to work rates of patients with substance use disorders within a 2-years-period after inpatient rehabilitation.

Conclusions Implications of our trial for further research would be to improve study designs in this field up to the more robust methodological level of simple randomisation, to optimise practical aspects of CMRE provision, and to develop a more profound understanding of factors potentially mediating the effects of CMRE.

Acknowledgements We thank the participating patients and their next-of-kin. Availability of data and materials The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional file.

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Consent for publication Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and GCP-guidelines.

Additional files Additional file 1: Figure S1. References 1. Henkel D. Unemployment and substance use: a review of the literature — Curr Drug Abuse Rev.

Effektivität der stationären abstinenzorientierten Drogenrehabilitation - FVS-Katamnese des Entlassjahrgangs von Fachkliniken für Drogenrehabilitation.

Sucht Aktuell. Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Veränderung des Erwerbsstatus von zu Beginn der stationären Rehabilitation erwerbslosen Suchtrehabilitanden - differenziert nach Geschlecht [Tabellenbände] Effectiveness of different models of case management for substance-abusing populations.

J Psychoactive Drugs. The efficacy of case management with persons who have substance abuse problems: a three-level meta-analysis of outcomes.

J Consult Clin Psychol. Enhancing substance abuse treatment with case management. Its impact on employment.

J Subst Abuse Treat. An integrated drug counseling and employment intervention for methadone clients. A randomized trial of probation case management for drug-involved women offenders.

Crime Delinq. Stopp J.


2 thoughts on Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik

Add Your Comment

* Indicates Required Field

Your email address will not be published.

*