Schober, R., & Annis, H.M. (1996). Barriers to help-seek<strong>in</strong>g for change <strong>in</strong> dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g: A genderfocusedreview <strong>of</strong> the literature. Addictive Behaviors, 21: 81–92.Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., & Brown, B. S. (1997). <strong>Treatment</strong> retention and follow-up outcomes<strong>in</strong> the Drug <strong>Abuse</strong> <strong>Treatment</strong> Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology <strong>of</strong> Addictive Behaviors, 11:294-307.Statistics South Africa (1998a). Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Free State. Statistics South Africa: Pretoria.Statistics South Africa (1998b). Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> North West. Statistics South Africa: Pretoria.Statistics South Africa (1998c). Liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Northern Cape. Statistics South Africa: Pretoria.Statistics South Africa (2005). Mid-year population estimates, South Africa 2005. StatisticsSouth Africa: Pretoria.Statistics South Africa (2006a). Prov<strong>in</strong>cial pr<strong>of</strong>ile Free State: 2004. Statistics South Africa:Pretoria.Statistics South Africa (2006b). Prov<strong>in</strong>cial pr<strong>of</strong>ile Limpopo: 2004. Statistics South Africa:Pretoria.Statistics South Africa (2006c). Prov<strong>in</strong>cial pr<strong>of</strong>ile Mpumalanga: 2004. Statistics South Africa:Pretoria.Statistics South Africa (2006d). Prov<strong>in</strong>cial pr<strong>of</strong>ile Northern Cape: 2004. Statistics South Africa:Pretoria.Sturm R., & Sherbourne, C.D. (2001). Are barriers to mental health and substance abuse care stillris<strong>in</strong>g? Journal <strong>of</strong> Behavioral Health Services Research, 28: 81-88.Teesson, M., Havard, A., Fairbairn, S., Ross, J., Lynskey, M., & Darke, S. (2005). Depressionamong entrants to treatment for hero<strong>in</strong> dependence <strong>in</strong> the Australian <strong>Treatment</strong> Outcome Study(ATOS): Prevalence, correlates and treatment seek<strong>in</strong>g. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 78: 309-315.Th<strong>in</strong>d, A., & Andersen, R. (2003). Respiratory illness <strong>in</strong> the Dom<strong>in</strong>ican Republic: What are thepredictors for health services utilization <strong>of</strong> young children? Social Science & Medic<strong>in</strong>e, 56:1173-1182.Torres, M. I., Mattick, R. P., Chen R., & Baillie, A. (1995). Clients <strong>of</strong> treatment service agencies:March 1995 census f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs. Australian Government Publish<strong>in</strong>g Service: Canberra.Tucker, J.A., Vuch<strong>in</strong>ich, R.E., & Rippens, P.D. (2004). A factor analytic study <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluences onpatterns <strong>of</strong> help-seek<strong>in</strong>g among treated and untreated alcohol dependent persons. Journal <strong>of</strong><strong>Substance</strong> <strong>Abuse</strong> <strong>Treatment</strong>, 26: 237–242.Wechsberg, W.M., Craddock, S.G., & Hubbard, R.L. (1998). How are women who entersubstance abuse treatment different from men. A gender comparison from the Drug <strong>Abuse</strong><strong>Treatment</strong> Outcome Study (DATOS). Drugs & Society, 13: 97-115.88
Zule, W.A., Lam, W.K., & Wechsberg, W.M. (2003). <strong>Treatment</strong> read<strong>in</strong>ess among out-<strong>of</strong>treatmentAfrican-American crack users. Journal <strong>of</strong> Psychoactive Drugs, 35: 503-510.89
- 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 and 24:
audit substance abuse treatment fac
- Page 25 and 26:
2.8.3. Further data considerations
- 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 53 and 54: Table 12. Proportion of facilities
- Page 55 and 56: Figure 20.Proportion of substance a
- Page 57 and 58: Table 14. Proportion of facilities
- Page 59 and 60: Table 15. Proportion of facilities
- Page 61 and 62: 3.9.2. Monitoring of clients’ pro
- Page 63 and 64: Table 16. Proportion of facilities
- 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: Myers, B., & Fakier, N. (2007). Rep
Change language