Audit of Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in ... - SA HealthInfo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

non-responding facilities. Follow-up calls to non-responding facilities and for correctionof missing data continued through February 2008. Non-respondents were followed uptelephonically on at least four occasions.2.7. DATA ANALYSISStatistics for this study were computed using the Statistical Package for the SocialSciences (Norusis/SPSS Inc., 2005). Descriptive statistics were calculated for alltreatment service-, service delivery-, client-, staff-, and access-oriented variables. Wherepossible, facilities were stratified by province.2.8. DATA CONSIDERATIONS2.8.1. Response ratesQuestionnaires were sent to 17 facilities in Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, NorthWest and Northern Cape believed to offer substance abuse treatment services. Of thesefacilities, 5.9% (1) was found to be ineligible for the survey as they did not meet thecriteria for inclusion and a further 11.8% (2) had closed down. Through snowballing, 3(17.6%) new centres were identified that fit the criteria for inclusion in the study. In total,17 facilities were eligible for participation in the study, of which 14 facilities (82.4%)returned the TSA questionnaire. The final sample (N = 14) included 6 facilities in FreeState, 2 in Limpopo, 3 in Mpumalanga, 1 in North West and 2 in Northern Cape. Despitenumerous attempts over a 6 month period in contacting and offering assistance with thequestionnaire, one facility, surrounded by controversy, indicated that the TSA was “toodifficult to complete”. Concrete feedback in terms of difficulties with specific questionswas not forthcoming. Flexible dates for return of the TSA were maintained in order toencourage participation in the audit and accommodate the schedules of individualscompleting the TSA.2.8.2. Quality assurance and item non-responseAll questionnaires were reviewed for inconsistencies and missing data. Telephone callswere made to facilities to obtain missing data and to clarify unclear responses. Carefulediting and extensive follow-up greatly reduced item non-response.24
2.8.3. Further data considerations and limitationsCertain procedural considerations and data limitations must be taken into account wheninterpreting data from this audit:• This audit attempted to obtain responses from all known treatment facilities in FreeState, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape. It is; however, avoluntary survey and no adjustment was made for facilities that did not respond.• This audit provides information on the substance abuse treatment system and itsclients for the specified reference period only (i.e. the 12 months preceding the audit).Client counts reported here are estimated counts only and do not represent annualtotals.• The TSA collects data about treatment facilities and not about individual clients.Data on clients represent an aggregate of clients in treatment for each participatingfacility.• Multiple responses were allowed for certain variables (e.g. type of services provided).• The TSA collects self-report data from key informants at participating facilities.Social desirability processes and political concerns about ways in which findings willbe used may have influenced facility responses on specific items. The TSA (revisedversion) incorporates a number of validity checks. For example, several differentlyworded questions are used to examine client retention rates.25
Page 1 and 2: Alcohol & Drug Abuse Research UnitM
Page 3 and 4: 3.1.2 Treatment facility profile by
Page 5 and 6: 4.3 Targeting barriers to treatment
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA cross-sectional
Page 9 and 10: services to historically underserve
Page 11 and 12: use, reductions in criminal activit
Page 13 and 14: Despite high levels of substance ab
Page 15 and 16: Despite the apparent availability o
Page 17 and 18: treatment services provided. At pre
Page 19 and 20: use disorders whose physical and em
Page 21 and 22: delivery, treatment retention, and
Page 23: audit substance abuse treatment fac
Page 27 and 28: Figure 1. Inpatient intensity of ca
Page 29 and 30: Since there is a large overlap betw
Page 31 and 32: the total client population (χ = 4
Page 33 and 34: Figure 7.Comparison of race profile
Page 35 and 36: services per month ranges from 13 t
Page 37 and 38: 3.4.1. Characteristics of staff at
Page 39 and 40: supervision. In contrast, a much sm
Page 41 and 42: In terms of client record-keeping,
Page 43 and 44: Core findings:• Compared to the p
Page 45 and 46: using 12-step approaches, 75.0% rep
Page 47 and 48: Figure 16. Proportion of treatment
Page 49 and 50: 3.7. ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO TREATME
Page 51 and 52: Table 11. Proportion of facilities
Page 55 and 56: Figure 20.Proportion of substance a
Page 61 and 62: 3.9.2. Monitoring of clients’ pro
Page 65 and 66: PART 4: DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGSW
Page 67 and 68: previous audits of specialist subst
Page 69 and 70: small proportion of South African d
Page 71 and 72: high levels of substance use among
Page 73 and 74: these barriers appears to significa
Page 75 and 76:
appropriate services for Black/Afri
Page 77 and 78:
clients progress post-treatment, an
Page 79 and 80:
• The number of state facilities
Page 81 and 82:
• Another way of ensuring (indire
Page 83 and 84:
• The age appropriateness of serv
Page 85 and 86:
REFERENCESAllard, S.W., Tolman, R.M
Page 87 and 88:
Myers, B., & Fakier, N. (2007). Rep
Page 89:
Zule, W.A., Lam, W.K., & Wechsberg,
show all

Audit of Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in ... - SA HealthInfo

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?