Substance Abuse and Mental Illness - Literature review Example

Substance Abuse and Mental Illness Introduction When a person has both mental illness and substance abuse, it is known as dual diagnosis. The concept of dual diagnosis was described in the early 1980s. In their article, Pepper, Krishner and Ryglewicz (1981) reported that "a new generation of persistently dysfunctional young adults (aged 18 to 35) has emerged in the community, requiring new programs in community care". However, it is only after 20 years of research and development that this problem is well recognized and clinicians have agreed upon the need for dual diagnosis services for such patients. Now, dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness are emerging as an evidence-based practice (Drake, 2001). It is important to treat both the conditions for the affected persons to get better. The mental illnesses which are associated with substance abuse are depression, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders and personality disorders. Magnitude of the problem According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness which published data from the Journal of American Medical Association and from the two surveys: the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) Survey (administered 1980-1984), and the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS), administered between 1990 and 1992, 50 percent of individuals with severe mental disorders are affected by substance abuse, 37 percent of alcohol abusers and 53 percent of drug abusers also have at least one serious mental illness and, 29 percent of all people diagnosed as mentally ill abuse either alcohol or drugs. Also, 42.7 percent of individuals in the NCS survey with a 12-month addictive disorder had at least one 12-month mental disorder, and 14.7 percent of individuals with a 12-month mental disorder had at least one 12-month addictive disorder. In the ECA Survey (Regier, 1990), 47 percent of individuals with schizophrenia also had a substance abuse disorder and 61 percent of individuals with bipolar disorder also had a substance abuse disorder. In their study, Chitty and colleagues (2006) reported that the prevalence of dual diagnosis in an institution for individuals who are developmentally handicapped was 26.8 percent. Hence, it can approximately be said that about 50 percent of individuals with severe mental disorders are affected by substance abuse. Younger age, male gender, and lower educational attainment are associated with greater risk for addiction (Dixon, 1999). The need to recognize and provide dual diagnosis services Offering dual diagnosis services is a relatively new concept (Drake, 2001). Until now, the services provided for substance abuse and mental illness were located in different places because of which the patient would be bounced back and forth between services or would be refused treatment by each of them (Hatfield, 1993) resulting in fragmented and ineffective care. The need for dual diagnosis services arises because of the high prevalence and the negative outcomes associated with the problem. In a study by Swofford and others (1996), they reported that schizophrenics with substance abuse were much younger, had significantly higher severity of illness scores, and had nearly twice as many hospitalizations and 4 times as many relapses when compared to those with only schizophrenia. Drake and others (2001) have mentioned in their study that there is increased incidence of negative outcomes, incarceration, violence, homelessness and serious infections such as HIV and hepatitis in those with dual diagnosis and that clinicians, administrators, researchers, family organizations, and clients themselves have been calling for the integration of mental health and substance abuse services for at least 15 years. These patients also have increased psychotic symptoms, poorer treatment compliance, housing instability and homelessness, poor money management, and greater use of crisis-oriented services that result in higher costs of care (Dixon, 1999). Substance abuse is also associated with low levels of satisfaction with family relationships among persons with severe mental illness (Dixon, 1995). Many studies have reported the benefits of dual diagnosis integrated services. Drake and colleagues (2006), studied 10 year recovery outcomes for clients with dual diagnosis and opined that there was hopeful long term perspective for these clients once they received dual diagnosis services. They reported that 62.7% were controlling symptoms of schizophrenia; 62.5% were actively attaining remissions from substance abuse; 56.8% were in independent living situations; 41.4% were competitively employed; 48.9% had regular social contacts with non–substance abusers; and 58.3% expressed overall life satisfaction. Dual Diagnosis Management Treatment for those with dual diagnosis are generally added to community support programs within the mental health system because in most states, the publicly financed mental health system bears responsibility for providing treatment and support services for individuals with severe mental illness (Drake, 2001). Treatment involves integration of mental health services and substance abuse interventions. It means that the same clinicians provide appropriate mental health and substance abuse interventions in a coordinated fashion while working in one setting (Drake, 2001). The goal of treatment of dual diagnosis is recovery from two serious illnesses, the substance abuse and mental illness. In a study by Minkoff (1989), dual diagnosis patients were viewed as having two primary, chronic, biologic mental illnesses, each requiring specific treatment to stabilize acute symptoms and engage the patient in a recovery process. From the past studies, it is evident that these services need to incorporate outreach and motivational interventions with long-term rehabilitation (Drake, 2001). Intervention Models There have been various intervention models to provide services for those with dual diagnosis. These include staged interventions, behavioral skills training, intensive care management (Jerrel, 1995), individual-based cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) combined with a family intervention programme (Haddock, 2003), motivational intervention (Drake, 2001), social support intervention (Drake, 1998) and comprehensive management or psychosocial approach (Green field 1995, Drake 2000). Which is the best model to deal with these clients is still under research. An ideal model would be that which produces positive outcomes, including substantial rates of stable remission of substance abuse (Drake, 1993), low cost (Clark, 2003) and helps the client lead a satisfying and fruitful life. Staged interventions involve delivering treatment in a staged manner (Jerrel, 1995). The client is first taken in to trust, is then motivated and then persuaded to gain recovery. Jerrel and colleagues (1995) developed a 12 stage intervention. In the process, the client is helped to acquire skills and supports for controlling illnesses and pursuing goals. Also, relapse prevention is aimed at. Through intensive care management (Jerrel, 1995), assertive outreach is aimed at. This may also involve meeting the client at home, providing him with daily needs and building a trustful relationship. This way, access to services is gained. Motivation helps those especially who are demoralized, symptomatic and confused (Drake, 2001). This method helps an individual identify his goals. Comprehensive approach is necessary to make the individual lead a symptom free and fruitful life. To achieve this, friends, activities and stress management must be included. Sometimes, it may be necessary to manage the finances and day-to-day needs of the client including housing and vocational rehabilitation. Another fundamental component of dual diagnosis services is counseling. This helps develop positive coping patterns, as well as promotes cognitive and behavioral skills (Drake, 2001). Counseling can be in the form of individual, group, or family therapy or a combination of these. The integrated services must also consider elements of cultural sensitivity (Drake, 2001). Cultural considerations will benefit certain sensitive groups like African-Americans and Hispanics. Also, adequate competence will benefit those who are homeless and women with children. In these cases, services must be tailored to their particular racial and cultural needs (Drake, 2001). In a study by Jerrell and Ridgely (1995), they reported that clients in the behavioral skills group demonstrated the most positive and significant differences in psychosocial functioning and symptomatology, compared with the Twelve Step recovery approach. Even the case management intervention resulted in several positive and important differences compared with the Twelve Step recovery approach. Haddock and colleagues (2003) studied the benefits of individual-based cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) combined with a family intervention programme. They reported that though the change in substance use was not that remarkable, patients who underwent this form of therapy had general improvement in their PANSS1 and GAF2 scores. There was definite reduction in harm even though they continued to use alcohol or other drugs. However, Clark and Mueser (2003) analyzed that this form of therapy was not cost effective when compared to other forms of treatment. Research While which type of intervention is the best one to advocate is a much debated topic, individualized management may be an ongoing option. Though some studies have shown benefits of some models (Jerrrel, 1995 and Haddock, 2003), the results are not promising. Larger studies of CBT and family intervention for patients with co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders are certainly needed to increase our confidence that it is sufficiently cost-effective to be adopted more widely (Clark, 2003). Hurdles to treatment Denial is an inherent part of the problem in dual diagnosis where in the involved individuals often do not have insight as to the seriousness and the scope of the problem (“Dual Diagnosis”, Helpguide.org). Stigma continues to complicate the lives of the stigmatized even as treatment improves their symptoms and functioning and hence it follows that if health professionals want to maximize the well-being of the people they treat, they must address stigma as a separate and important factor in its own right (Link, 1997). Since, dual diagnosis services is a newly emerging practice; there is a fear of losing money to cover nontraditional populations which often leads to prolonged disagreements, inability to develop consensus, and abandonment of other plans (Drake, 2001). Hence implementation may be difficult. Also there are not many dual diagnosis specialists who can subsequently train other clinicians and programs. Until professional educational programs begin teaching current dual diagnosis treatment techniques, mental health system leaders will bear the burden of training staff. This training also requires funding and regulations (Drake, 2001). Also, often, clients and their families rarely have good information about dual diagnosis and appropriate services. In fact, in many cases, family members are often unaware of substance abuse, blame all symptoms on drug abuse, or attribute symptoms and substance use to willful misbehavior (Drake, 2001). Conclusion The concept of dual diagnosis is now recognized and the need for services to this dangerous problem is more and more recognized. Various studies have shown the benefits of integrated treatment and the futility of traditional separate services. The integrated services must include in them certain components which are necessary to achieve the goals of treatment. These components include staged interventions, psycho-social support, motivation, behaviour therapies, comprehensive services, cultural sensitive services, competence, assertive approach and counseling. The goals of these services include remission, prevention of relapse and leading a fruitful life. Family and friends may also be involved in the treatment. Which is the best mode of intervention is still under research. In the mean time, individual based therapy may be the best. Though many studies have shown the benefits of integrated services, to bring them in to vogue is difficult considering the fact that it involves funds, policy making, training and drift from traditional methods. Even if these services are introduced, the individuals and family members may not be aware of these and hence may not avail these services. However, for those who can utilize these services, there can be a hope for good outcome. References Chitty, D.J., Boo, S.S., & Jamieson, J. (2006). Prevalence of dual diagnosis in an institution for individuals who are developmentally handicapped. Behavioral Interventions, 8 (1), 55-56. Clark, R.E, & Mueser, K.T. (2003). Progress in research on dual disorders. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 183. Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/183/5/377 Dixon, L. (1999). Dual diagnosis of substance abuse in schizophrenia: prevalence and impact on outcomes. Schizophrenia Research, 35 (1) S93-S100. Dixon, L., Mc Nary, S. & Lehman, A. (1995). Substance abuse and family relationships of persons with severe mental illness. Am J Psychiatry, 152, 456-458. Drake, R.E., McHugo, G., & Noordsy, D.L. (1993). Treatment of alcoholism among schizophrenic outpatients: four-year outcomes. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150. Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/150/2/328?ijkey=b5e52c0e2e5aff25f7926156ecbb81d8e7e5ca35. Drake, R.E., Mercer-McFadden, C., & Mueser, K.T. (1998). Review of integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment for patients with dual disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin 24:589-608. Drake, R.E., Essock, S.M., Shaner, A., Carey, K.B., Minkoff, K., Kola, L., et al. (2001). Implementing Dual Diagnosis Services for Clients with Severe Mental Illness. Psychiatric Services, 52. Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://www.ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/4/469 Drake, R.E., Mueser, K.T. (2000). Psychosocial approaches to dual diagnosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26,105-118. Drake, R. (2003). Dual Diagnosis and Integrated Treatment of Mental Illness and Substance Abuse Disorder. National Alliance on Mental Illness. Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=54&ContentID=23049. Drake, R.E, McHugo, G.J., Xie, H., Fox ,M., Packard, J., & Helmstetter B. (2006). Ten-Year Recovery Outcomes for Clients With Co-Occurring Schizophrenia and Substance Use Disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32(3): 464 - 473. http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/3/464 Dual Diagnosis. Helpguide.org. Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://www.helpguide.org/mental/dual_diagnosis.htm Greenfield, S.F, Weiss, R.D, Tohen, M. (1995). Substance abuse and the chronically mentally ill: a description of dual diagnosis treatment services in a psychiatric hospital. Community Mental Health Journal, 31:265-278. Haddock, G., Barrowclough, C., & Tarrier, N.,(2003) Randomised controlled trial of cognitive–behavioural therapy and motivational intervention for schizophrenia and substance use. Carer and economic outcomes at 18 months. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183. Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/183/5/418?ijkey=2dc92298d5f905f24e54bbb1621a88182a05ec9d Hatfield, A.B. (1993). Dual Diagnosis and Mental Illness (Schizophrenia and Drug or Alcohol Dependence). Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://www.schizophrenia.com/family/dualdiag.html Jerrell, J.M., Ridgely, M.S.(1995). Comparative effectiveness of three approaches to serving people with severe mental illness and substance abuse disorders. J Nerv Ment Dis.,183(9),566-76. Link, B.G., Struening, E.L., Rahav, M., Phelan, J.C., Nuttbrock, L. (1997). Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38 (2), 177-190. Minkoff, K. (1989). An integrated treatment model for dual diagnosis of psychosis and addiction. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 40. Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/40/10/1031?ijkey=c773e92572e1eef371b509e8ef94c4d762058944 Pepper, B., Krishner, M.C., & Ryglewicz, H. (1981). The young adult chronic patient: overview of a population. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 32. Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/32/7/463?ijkey=52713a76d163471bfe28a4bbc176fd94d3286bb9 Regier, D.A., Farmer, M.E., Rae, D.S., Locke, B.Z., Keith, S.J., Judd, L.L., & Goodwin, F.K. (1990). Comorbidity of mental disorders with alcohol and Results from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) Study. The Journal of American medical association, 264 (19). Retrieved Sep.11, 2007 from http://jama.amaassn.org/cgi/content/abstract/264/19/2511?ijkey=53de8c6c989810443fd687967c027914fb8d6ceb&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha Swofford, C., Kasckow, J., & Scheller-Gilkey, G. (1996). Substance use: a powerful predictor of relapse in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 20,145-151. Appendix Chitty DJ, Boo, SS, Jamieson, J. 2006. Prevalence of dual diagnosis in an institution for individuals who are developmentally handicapped. Behavioral Interventions, 8 (1), 55-56. Article Prevalence of dual diagnosis in an institution for individuals who are developmentally handicapped Dorothy J. Chitty 1, Shuan S. Boo 2, John Jamieson 3 1lakehead University, Canada 2Northwestern Regional Centre, Canada 3Lakehead University, Canada Based on an MA thesis submitted to Lakehead University by the senior author. Abstract The prevalence of dual diagnosis (developmental handicap with accompanying mental illness) was examined in a population of 71 persons who are institutionalized and developmentally handicapped. The Reiss Screen for Maladaptive Behavior (Reiss, 1988) revealed that 69% of the popula- tion had a dual diagnosis. The incidence of dual diagnosis was not related to level of functioning, although the type of psychopathology varied considerably across levels of functioning. In contrast to findings from the Reiss Screen, previous psychiatric diagnosis indicated a much lower rate of dual diagnosis (26.8%), as did current psychiatric assessment. There was little agreement between the two psychiatric assessments, or between the Reiss Screen and the psychiatric assessments. The Reiss Screen appears to provide information of more practical value for community placement decisions than is provided by the psychiatric assessments. Limitations to the concept of dual diagnosis for characterizing the mental health needs of persons with a developmental handicap are discussed. ------------------- Clark RE, Mueser, KT. 2003. Progress in research on dual disorders. The British Journal of Psychiatry (2003) 183: 377-378. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/183/5/377 -------------------- Dual diagnosis of substance abuse in schizophrenia: prevalence and impact on outcomes Lisa Dixon* University of Maryland, Department of Psychiatry, 701 W. Pratt St., Room 476, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA Available online 23 February 1999. Abstract Comorbid substance abuse disorders have emerged as one of the greatest obstacles to the effective treatment of persons with schizophrenia. Estimates of the prevalence of such comorbidity vary, but as many as half of persons with schizophrenia may suffer from a comorbid drug or alcohol disorder. Younger age, male gender, and lower educational attainment are associated with greater risk for addiction. Persons with schizophrenia and comorbid addiction tend to have an earlier onset of schizophrenia than do those without comorbid addiction. Research does not support a link between specific symptoms of schizophrenia and choice of abused drugs. Rather, drug choice is correlated with the pattern of ambient drug use in the community. Comorbid substance disorders are associated with a variety of poorer outcomes, including increased psychotic symptoms, poorer treatment compliance, violence, housing instability and homelessness, medical problems (including human immunodeficiency virus infection), poor money management, and greater use of crisis-oriented services that result in higher costs of care. Considerable progress has been made over the past decade in understanding the need to integrate substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment to provide more effective care for this population. Author Keywords: Alcohol; Cannabis; Cocaine; Psychotic symptoms; Schizophrenia; Substance abuse -------- Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152:456-458 Copyright © 1995 by American Psychiatric Association REGULAR ARTICLES Substance abuse and family relationships of persons with severe mental illness L Dixon, S McNary and A Lehman Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland, Baltimore 21201. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine how substance abuse affects family relationships of persons with severe mental illness. METHOD: Patient reports of family relationships were compared between 101 psychiatric inpatients with a concurrent substance use disorder and 78 subjects with severe mental illness only. RESULTS: Patients with comorbid substance abuse reported significantly lower family satisfaction and a greater desire for family treatment. Objective indicators of frequency of family contact did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Substance abuse is associated with low levels of satisfaction with family relationships among persons with severe mental illness. Family interventions would meet the stated needs of persons with mental illness and a comorbid substance use disorder and might help to engage them in treatment. ---- Drake RE, McHugo G, Noordsy DL: Treatment of alcoholism among schizophrenic outpatients: four-year outcomes. American Journal of Psychiatry 150:328- 329, 1993. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/150/2/328?ijkey=b5e52c0e2e5aff25f7926156ecbb81d8e7e5ca35 -- Psychiatr Serv 52:469-476, April 2001 © 2001 American Psychiatric Association Evidence-Based Practices Implementing Dual Diagnosis Services for Clients With Severe Mental Illness Robert E. Drake, M.D., Ph.D., Susan M. Essock, Ph.D., Andrew Shaner, M.D., Kate B. Carey, Ph.D., Kenneth Minkoff, M.D., Lenore Kola, Ph.D., David Lynde, M.S.W., Fred C. Osher, M.D., Robin E. Clark, Ph.D. and Lawrence Rickards, Ph.D.   Abstract   After 20 years of development and research, dual diagnosis services for clients with severe mental illness are emerging as an evidence-based practice. Effective dual diagnosis programs combine mental health and substance abuse interventions that are tailored for the complex needs of clients with comorbid disorders. The authors describe the critical components of effective programs, which include a comprehensive, long-term, staged approach to recovery; assertive outreach; motivational interventions; provision of help to clients in acquiring skills and supports to manage both illnesses and to pursue functional goals; and cultural sensitivity and competence. Many state mental health systems are implementing dual diagnosis services, but high-quality services are rare. The authors provide an overview of the numerous barriers to implementation and describe implementation strategies to overcome the barriers. Current approaches to implementing dual diagnosis programs involve organizational and financing changes at the policy level, clarity of program mission with structural changes to support dual diagnosis services, training and supervision for clinicians, and dissemination of accurate information to consumers and families to support understanding, demand, and advocacy.   Introduction   Substance abuse is the most common and clinically significant comorbid disorder among adults with severe mental illness. In this paper the term "substance abuse" refers to substance use disorders, which include abuse and dependence. "Severe mental illness" refers to long-term psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, that are associated with disability and that fall within the traditional purview of public mental health systems. Finally, the term "dual diagnosis" denotes the co-occurrence of substance abuse and severe mental illness. There are many populations with dual diagnoses, and there are other common terms for this particular group. Furthermore, dual diagnosis is a misleading term because the individuals in this group are heterogeneous and tend to have multiple impairments rather than just two illnesses. Nevertheless, the term appears consistently in the literature and has acquired some coherence as a referent to particular clients, treatments, programs, and service system issues. Since the problem of dual diagnosis became clinically apparent in the early 1980s (1,2), researchers have established three basic and consistent findings. First, co-occurrence is common; about 50 percent of individuals with severe mental disorders are affected by substance abuse (3). Second, dual diagnosis is associated with a variety of negative outcomes, including higher rates of relapse (4), hospitalization (5), violence (6), incarceration (7), homelessness (8), and serious infections such as HIV and hepatitis (9). Third, the parallel but separate mental health and substance abuse treatment systems so common in the United States deliver fragmented and ineffective care (10). Most clients are unable to navigate the separate systems or make sense of disparate messages about treatment and recovery. Often they are excluded or extruded from services in one system because of the comorbid disorder and told to return when the other problem is under control. For those reasons, clinicians, administrators, researchers, family organizations, and clients themselves have been calling for the integration of mental health and substance abuse services for at least 15 years (10,11). Over that time, integrated dual diagnosis services—that is, treatments and programs—have been steadily developed, refined, and evaluated (11). This paper, part of a series on specific evidence-based practices for persons with severe mental illness, provides an overview of the evolution of dual diagnosis services, the evidence on outcomes and critical components, and the limitations of current research. We also address barriers to the implementation of dual diagnosis services and current strategies for implementation in routine mental health settings.   Dual diagnosis services   Treatments, or interventions, are offered within programs that are part of service systems. Dual diagnosis treatments combine or integrate mental health and substance abuse interventions at the level of the clinical interaction. Hence integrated treatment means that the same clinicians or teams of clinicians, working in one setting, provide appropriate mental health and substance abuse interventions in a coordinated fashion. In other words, the caregivers take responsibility for combining the interventions into one coherent package. For the individual with a dual diagnosis, the services appear seamless, with a consistent approach, philosophy, and set of recommendations. The need to negotiate with separate clinical teams, programs, or systems disappears. Integration involves not only combining appropriate treatments for both disorders but also modifying traditional interventions (12,13,14,15). For example, social skills training emphasizes the importance of developing relationships but also the need to avoid social situations that could lead to substance use. Substance abuse counseling goes slowly, in accordance with the cognitive deficits, negative symptoms, vulnerability to confrontation, and greater need for support that are characteristic of many individuals with severe mental illness. Family interventions address understanding and learning to cope with two interacting illnesses. The goal of dual diagnosis interventions is recovery from two serious illnesses (16). In this context, "recovery" means that the individual with a dual diagnosis learns to manage both illnesses so that he or she can pursue meaningful life goals (17,18).   Research on dual diagnosis practices   In most states, the publicly financed mental health system bears responsibility for providing treatments and support services for clients with severe mental illness. Dual diagnosis treatments for these clients have therefore generally been added to community support programs within the mental health system. Early studies of dual diagnosis interventions during the 1980s examined the application of traditional substance abuse treatments, such as 12-step groups, to clients with mental disorders within mental health programs. These studies had disappointing results for at least two reasons (19). The clinical programs did not take into account the complex needs of the population, and researchers had not yet solved basic methodologic problems. For example, early programs often failed to incorporate outreach and motivational interventions, and evaluations were limited by lack of reliable and valid assessment of substance abuse. Reviews based on these early studies were understandably pessimistic (20). At the same time, however, a series of demonstration projects using more comprehensive programs that incorporated assertive outreach and long-term rehabilitation began to show better outcomes. Moreover, the projects developed motivational interventions to help clients who did not perceive or acknowledge their substance abuse or mental illness problems (21). Building on these insights, projects in the early 1990s incorporated motivational approaches as well as outreach, comprehensiveness, and a long-term perspective, often within the structure of multidisciplinary treatment teams. These later studies, which were uncontrolled but incorporated more valid measures of substance abuse, generally showed positive outcomes, including substantial rates of stable remission of substance abuse (22,23,24,25). Of course, uncontrolled studies of this type often produce findings that are not replicated in controlled studies; they should be considered pilot studies, which are often needed to refine the intervention and the methodologies of evaluation and which should be followed by controlled investigation to determine evidence-based practice (26). Controlled research studies of comprehensive dual diagnosis programs began to appear in the mid-1990s. Eight recent studies with experimental or quasi-experimental designs support the effectiveness of integrated dual diagnosis treatments for clients with severe mental illness and substance use disorders (27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34). The type and array of dual diagnosis interventions in these programs vary, but they include several common components, which are reviewed below. The eight studies demonstrated a variety of positive outcomes in domains such as substance abuse, psychiatric symptoms, housing, hospitalization, arrests, functional status, and quality of life (19). Although each had methodological limitations, together they indicate that current integrated treatment programs are more effective than nonintegrated programs. By contrast, the evidence continues to show that dual diagnosis clients in mental health programs that fail to integrate substance abuse interventions have poor outcomes (35).   Critical components   Several components of integrated programs can be considered evidence-based practices because they are almost always present in programs that have demonstrated good outcomes in controlled studies and because their absence is associated with predictable failures (21). For example, dual diagnosis programs that include assertive outreach are able to engage and retain clients at a high rate, while those that fail to include outreach lose many clients. Staged interventions Effective programs incorporate, implicitly or explicitly, the concept of stages of treatment (14,36,37). In the simplest conceptualization, stages of treatment include forming a trusting relationship (engagement), helping the engaged client develop the motivation to become involved in recovery-oriented interventions (persuasion), helping the motivated client acquire skills and supports for controlling illnesses and pursuing goals (active treatment), and helping the client in stable remission develop and use strategies for maintaining recovery (relapse prevention). Clients do not move linearly through stages. They sometimes enter services at advanced levels, skip over or pass rapidly through stages, or relapse to earlier stages. They may be in different stages with respect to mental illness and substance abuse. Nevertheless, the concept of stages has proved useful to program planners and clinicians because clients at different stages respond to stage-specific interventions. Assertive outreach Many clients with a dual diagnosis have difficulty linking with services and participating in treatment (38). Effective programs engage clients and members of their support systems by providing assertive outreach, usually through some combination of intensive case management and meetings in the clients residence (21,32). For example, homeless persons with dual diagnoses often benefit from outreach, help with housing, and time to develop a trusting relationship before participating in any formal treatment. These approaches enable clients to gain access to services and maintain needed relationships with a consistent program over months and years. Without such efforts, noncompliance and dropout rates are high (39). Motivational interventions Most dual diagnosis clients have little readiness for abstinence-oriented treatment (40,41). Many also lack motivation to manage psychiatric illness and to pursue employment or other functional goals. Effective programs therefore incorporate motivational interventions that are designed to help clients become ready for more definitive interventions aimed at illness self-management (12,14,21). For example, clients who are so demoralized, symptomatic, or confused that they mistakenly believe that alcohol and cocaine are helping them to cope better than medications require education, support, and counseling to develop hope and a realistic understanding of illnesses, drugs, treatments, and goals. Motivational interventions involve helping the individual identify his or her own goals and to recognize, through a systematic examination of the individuals ambivalence, that not managing ones illnesses interferes with attaining those goals (42). Recent research has demonstrated that clients who are not motivated can be reliably identified (43) and effectively helped with motivational interventions (Carey KB, Carey MP, Maisto SA, et al, unpublished data, 2000). Counseling Once clients are motivated to manage their own illnesses, they need to develop skills and supports to control symptoms and to pursue an abstinent lifestyle. Effective programs provide some form of counseling that promotes cognitive and behavioral skills at this stage. The counseling takes different forms and formats, such as group, individual, or family therapy or a combination (15). Few studies have compared specific approaches to counseling, although one study did find preliminary evidence that a cognitive-behavioral approach was superior to a 12-step approach (28). At least three research groups are actively working to refine cognitive-behavioral approaches to substance abuse counseling for dual diagnosis clients (12,13,44). These approaches often incorporate motivational sessions at the beginning of counseling and as needed in subsequent sessions rather than as separate interventions. Social support interventions In addition to helping clients build skills for managing their illness and pursuing goals, effective programs focus on strengthening the immediate social environment to help them modify their behavior. These activities, which recognize the role of social networks in recovery from dual disorders (45), include social network or family interventions. Long-term perspective Effective programs recognize that recovery tends to occur over months or years in the community. People with severe mental illness and substance abuse do not usually develop stability and functional improvements quickly, even in intensive treatment programs, unless they enter treatment at an advanced stage (19). Instead, they tend to improve over months and years in conjunction with a consistent dual diagnosis program. Effective programs therefore take a long-term, community-based perspective that includes rehabilitation activities to prevent relapses and to enhance gains. Comprehensiveness Learning to lead a symptom-free, abstinent lifestyle that is satisfying and sustainable often requires transforming many aspects of ones life—for example, habits, stress management, friends, activities, and housing. Therefore, in effective programs attention to substance abuse as well as mental illness is integrated into all aspects of the existing mental health program and service system rather than isolated as a discrete substance abuse treatment intervention. Inpatient hospitalization, assessment, crisis intervention, medication management, money management, laboratory screening, housing, and vocational rehabilitation incorporate special features that are tailored specifically for dual diagnosis patients. For example, hospitalization is considered a component of the system that supports movement toward recovery by providing diagnosis, stabilization, and linkage with outpatient dual diagnosis interventions during acute episodes (46). Similarly, housing and vocational programs can be used to support the individual with a dual diagnosis in acquiring skills and supports needed for recovery (47). Cultural sensitivity and competence A fundamental finding of the demonstration programs of the late 1980s was that cultural sensitivity and competence were critical to engaging clients in dual diagnosis services (21). These demonstrations showed that African Americans, Hispanics, and other underserved groups, such as farm workers, homeless persons, women with children, inner-city residents, and persons in rural areas, could be engaged in dual diagnosis services if the services were tailored to their particular racial, cultural, and other group characteristics. Many dual diagnosis programs omit some of these critical components as evidence-based practices. However, one consistent finding in the research is that programs that show high fidelity to the model described here—those that incorporate more of the core elements—produce better outcomes than low-fidelity programs (32,48,49). A common misconception about technology transfer is that model programs are not generalizable and that local solutions are superior. A more accurate reading of the research is that modifications for cultural and other local circumstances are important, but critical program components must be replicated to achieve good outcomes.   Limitations of the research   The design and quality of research procedures and data across dual diagnosis studies are inconsistent. In addition, researchers have thus far failed to address a number of issues. Dual diagnosis research has studied the clinical enterprise, that is, treatments and programs, with little attention to the policy or system perspective. Despite widespread endorsement of integrated dual diagnosis services (13,50,51,52,53), there continues to be a general failure at the federal and state levels to resolve problems related to organization and financing (see below). Thus, despite the emergence of many excellent programs around the country, few if any large mental health systems have been able to accomplish widespread implementation of dual diagnosis services for persons with severe mental illness. We are aware of no specific studies of strategies to finance, contract for, reorganize, or train in relation to dual diagnosis services. Lack of data on the cost of integrated dual diagnosis services and the cost savings of providing good care impedes policy development. Dual diagnosis clients incur high treatment costs in usual services (54,55), and care is costly to their families (56), but effective treatment may be even more costly. Some studies suggest cost savings related to providing good services (57,58), but these are not definitive. Another limitation of the research is the lack of specificity of dual diagnosis treatments. Interventions differ across studies, manuals and fidelity measures are rare, and no consensus exists on specific approaches to individual counseling, group treatment, family intervention, housing, medications, and other components. Current research will address some of these issues by refining specific components, although efficacy studies may identify complex and expensive interventions that will be impractical in routine mental health settings. A majority of dual diagnosis clients respond well to integrated outpatient services, but clients who do not respond continue to be at high risk of hospitalization, incarceration, homelessness, HIV infection, and other serious adverse outcomes. Other than one study of long-term residential treatment (33), controlled research has not addressed clients who do not respond to outpatient services. Other potential interventions include outpatient commitment (59), treatments aimed at trauma sequelae (60), money management (61), contingency management (62), and pharmacological approaches using medications such as clozapine (63), disulfiram (64), or naltrexone. Although a few studies have explored the specific treatment needs of dual diagnosis clients who are women (65,66) or minorities (21,67), particular program modifications for these groups need further validation. For example, many dual diagnosis programs have identified high rates of trauma histories and sequelae among women (46,68,69), and studies have suggested interventions to address trauma; however, no data on outcomes are yet available.   Implementation barriers   Although integrated dual diagnosis services and other evidence-based practices are widely advocated, they are rarely offered in routine mental health treatment settings (70). The barriers are legion. Policy barriers State, county, and city mental health authorities often encounter policies related to organizational structure, financing, regulations, and licensing that militate against the functional integration of mental health and substance abuse services (71). The U.S. public mental health and substance abuse treatment systems grew independently. In most states these services are provided under the auspices of separate cabinet-level departments with separate funding streams, advocacy groups, lobbyists, enabling legislation, information systems, job classifications, and criteria for credentials. Huge fiscal incentives and strong political allies act to maintain the status quo. Medicaid programs, which fund a significant and growing proportion of treatment for persons with severe mental illness, vary substantially from state to state in the types of mental health and substance abuse services they fund. In most states, mental health and substance abuse agencies have little control over how Medicaid services are reimbursed or administered, which makes it difficult for public systems to ensure that appropriate services are accessible. Medicare, the federal insurance program for elderly and disabled persons, generally pays for a more limited scope of mental health and substance abuse services. Together Medicaid and Medicare pay for more than 30 percent of all behavioral health services, but their impact on dual diagnosis services has not been studied (72). Program barriers At the local level, administrators of clinics, centers, and programs have often lacked the clear service models, administrative guidelines, contractual incentives, quality assurance procedures, and outcome measures needed to implement dual diagnosis services. When clinical needs compel them to move ahead anyway, they have difficulty hiring a skilled workforce with experience in providing dual diagnosis interventions and lack the resources to train current supervisors and clinicians. Clinical barriers The beliefs of the mental health and substance abuse treatment traditions are inculcated in clinicians, which diminishes the opportunities for cross-fertilization (73). Although an integrated clinical philosophy and a practical approach to dual diagnosis treatment have been clearly delineated for more than a decade (16), educational institutions rarely teach this approach. Consequently, mental health clinicians typically lack training in dual diagnosis treatment and have to rely on informal, self-initiated opportunities for learning current interventions (74). They often avoid diagnosing substance abuse when they believe that it is irrelevant, that it will interfere with funding, or that they cannot treat it. Clinicians trained in substance abuse treatment, as well as recovering dual diagnosis clients, could add expertise and training, but they are often excluded from jobs in the mental health system. Consumer and family barriers Clients and their families rarely have good information about dual diagnosis and appropriate services. Few programs offer psychoeducational services related to dual diagnosis, although practical help from families plays a critical role in recovery (75). Family members are often unaware of substance abuse, blame all symptoms on drug abuse, or attribute symptoms and substance use to willful misbehavior. Supporting family involvement is an important but neglected role for clinicians. Consumers often deny or minimize problems related to substance abuse (40) and, like other substance abusers, believe that alcohol or other drugs are helpful in alleviating distress. They may be legitimately confused about causality because they perceive the immediate effects of drugs rather than the intermediate or long-term consequences (76). The net result is that the individual lacks motivation to pursue active substance abuse treatment, which can reinforce clinical inattention.   Implementation strategies   There are no proven strategies for overcoming the aforementioned barriers to implementing dual diagnosis services, but some suggestions have come from systems and programs that have had moderate success. Policy strategies Health care authorities in a majority of, and possibly all, states have current initiatives for creating dual diagnosis services. Because health care policy is often administered at the county or city level, hundreds of individual experiments are occurring. One initial branch point involves the decision to focus broadly on the entire behavioral health system—that is, on all clients with mental health and substance abuse problems—or more narrowly on services for those with severe mental illness and co-occurring substance abuse. We examine here only strategies for dual diagnosis clients with severe mental illness, for whom the implementation issues are relatively distinct. Commonly used system-level strategies include building a consensus around the vision for integrated services and then conjointly planning; specifying a model; implementing structural, regulatory, and reimbursement changes; establishing contracting mechanisms; defining standards; and funding demonstration programs and training initiatives (77). To our knowledge, few efforts have been made to study these efforts at the system level. Anecdotal evidence indicates that blending mental health and substance abuse funds appears to have been a relatively unsuccessful strategy, especially early in the course of system change. Fear of losing money to cover nontraditional populations often leads to prolonged disagreements, inability to develop consensus, and abandonment of other plans. As a less controversial, preliminary step, the mental health authority often assumes responsibility for comprehensive care, including substance abuse treatment, for persons with severe mental illness, while the substance abuse authority assists by pledging to help with training and planning. This limited approach enables the mental health system to attract and train dual diagnosis specialists who can subsequently train other clinicians and programs. Without structural, regulatory, and funding changes to reinforce the training, however, the expertise may soon disappear—a common experience after demonstration projects. Thus many experts advise that policy issues should be addressed early in the process of implementation to avoid wasting efforts on training (78,79,80). New costs to the mental health system for dual diagnosis training could be offset by greater effectiveness in ameliorating substance-abusing behaviors that are associated with hospitalizations. However, saving costs over time assumes that providers are at risk for all treatment costs, that is, that providers have incentives to invest more in outpatient services in order to spend less on inpatient services. Despite the growth of managed care, providers rarely bear complete financial responsibility for the treatment of clients with severe mental illness. Program strategies At the level of the mental health clinic or program leadership, the fundamental task is to begin recognizing and treating substance abuse rather than ignoring it or using it as a criterion for exclusion (81). After consensus-building activities to prepare for change, staff need training and supervision to learn new skills, and they must receive reinforcement for acquiring and using these skills effectively. One common strategy is to appoint a director of dual diagnosis services whose job is to plan and oversee the training of staff, the integration of substance abuse awareness and treatment into all aspects of the mental health program, and the monitoring and reinforcement of these activities through medical records, quality assurance activities, and outcome data. Experts identify the importance of having a single leader for program change (82). Fidelity measures for integrated dual diagnosis services can facilitate successful implementation at the program level (50,83). Monitoring and reinforcing mechanisms also emphasize client-centered outcomes, such as abstinence and employment. Clinical strategies Mental health clinicians need to acquire knowledge and a core set of skills related to substance abuse that includes assessing substance abuse, providing motivational interventions for clients who are not ready to participate in abstinence-oriented treatment, and providing counseling for those who are motivated try to maintain abstinence. Clinicians adopt new skills as a result of motivation, instruction, practice, and reinforcement (84). Because substance abuse affects the lives of the great majority of clients with severe mental illness—as a co-occurring disorder, family stressor, or environmental hazard—all clinicians should learn these basic skills. Otherwise substance abuse problems will continue to be missed and untreated in this population (85,86). For example, all case managers should recognize and address substance abuse in their daily interactions, as should housing staff, employment specialists, and other staff. Until professional educational programs begin teaching current dual diagnosis treatment techniques (87), mental health system leaders will bear the burden of training staff. Some staff will become dual diagnosis specialists and acquire more than the basic skills. These individuals will be counted on to lead dual diagnosis groups, family interventions, residential programs, and other specialized services. Consumer- and family-level strategies Clients and family members need access to accurate information. Otherwise their opportunities to make informed choices, to request effective services, and to advocate for system changes are severely compromised. Consumer demand and family advocacy can move the health care system toward evidence-based practices, but concerted efforts at the national, state, and local levels are required. Researchers can facilitate their efforts by offering clear messages about the forms, processes, and expected outcomes of evidence-based practices. Similarly, local programs should provide information on available dual diagnosis services to clients and their families. As consumers move into roles as providers within the mental health system and in consumer-run services, they also need training in dual diagnosis treatments. Local educational programs, such as community colleges, as well as staff training programs should address these needs.   Conclusions   Substance abuse is a common and devastating comorbid disorder among persons with severe mental illness. Recent research offers evidence that integrated dual diagnosis treatments are effective, but basic interventions are rarely incorporated into the mental health programs in which these clients receive care. Successful implementation of dual diagnosis services within mental health systems will depend on changes at several levels: clear policy directives with consistent organizational and financing supports, program changes to incorporate the mission of addressing co-occurring substance abuse, supports for the acquisition of expertise at the clinical level, and availability of accurate information to consumers and family members.   Acknowledgments   This review by a national panel was supported by grant 036805 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and contract 280-00-8049 from the Center for Mental Health Services. Editors note: This article is part of a series of papers on evidence-based practices being published in Psychiatric Services this year. The papers focus on mental health practices for which there is substantial evidence of effectiveness and that should therefore be routinely offered in clinical settings. Articles in previous issues have addressed implementing evidence-based practices for persons with severe mental illness and in routine mental health settings and implementing supported employment as an evidence-based practice. Among other topics, future articles will examine evidence-based practices for case management and assertive community treatment, illness self-management, childrens services, and services for the elderly population. Robert E. Drake, M.D., Ph.D., and Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D., are the series editors.     Footnotes   Dr. Drake and Dr. Clark are affiliated with the New Hampshire-Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center, 2 Whipple Place, Lebanon, New Hampshire 03766 (e-mail, robert.e.drake@dartmouth.edu ). Dr. Essock is with Mt. Sinai Medical School in New York City. Dr. Shaner is affiliated with the School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Carey is with Syracuse University in New York. Dr. Minkoff is in private practice in Boston. Dr. Kola is with Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Lynde is with West Institute in Concord, New Hampshire. Dr. Osher is with the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. Dr. Rickards is with the Center for Mental Health Services in Rockville, Maryland.   References   1. Pepper B, Krishner MC, Ryglewicz H: The young adult chronic patient: overview of a population. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 32:463-469, 1981[Abstract/Free Full Text] 2. Caton CLM: The new chronic patient and the system of community care. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 32:475-478, 1981[Abstract/Free Full Text] 3. Regier DA, Farmer ME, Rae DS, et al: Comorbidity of mental disorders with alcohol and other drug abuse. JAMA 264:2511- 2518, 1990[Abstract] 4. Swofford C, Kasckow J, Scheller-Gilkey G, et al: Substance use: a powerful predictor of relapse in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 20:145-151, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 5. Haywood TW, Kravitz HM, Grossman LS, et al: Predicting the "revolving door" phenomenon among patients with schizophrenic, schizoaffective, and affective disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry 152:856-861, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text] 6. Cuffel B, Shumway M, Chouljian T: A longitudinal study of substance use and community violence in schizophrenia. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 182:704- 708, 1994[Medline] 7. Abram KM, Teplin LA: Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees: implications for public policy. American Psychologist 46:1036-1045, 1991[CrossRef][Medline] 8. Caton CLM, Shrout PE, Eagle PF, et al: Risk factors for homelessness among schizophrenic men: a case-control study. American Journal of Public Health 84:265-270, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text] 9. Rosenberg SD, Goodman LA, Osher FC, et al: Prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C in people with severe mental illness. American Journal of Public Health 91:31-37, 2001[Abstract] 10. Ridgely MS, Osher FC, Goldman HH, et al: Executive Summary: Chronic Mentally Ill Young Adults With Substance Abuse Problems: A Review of Research, Treatment, and Training Issues. Baltimore, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Mental Health Services Research Center, 1987 11. Drake RE, Wallach MA: Dual diagnosis:15 years of progress. Psychiatric Services 51:1126-1129, 2000 12. Barrowclough C, Haddock G, Tarrier N, et al: Cognitive-behavioral intervention for clients with severe mental illness who have a substance misuse problem. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills 4:216-233, 2000 13. Bellack AS, DiClemente CC: Treating substance abuse among patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services 50:75-80, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text] 14. Carey KB: Substance use reduction in the context of outpatient psychiatric treatment: a collaborative, motivational, harm reduction approach. Community Mental Health Journal 32:291-306, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 15. Mueser KT, Drake RE, Noordsy DL: Integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment for severe psychiatric disorders. Journal of Practical Psychiatry and Behavioral Health 4:129-139, 1998 16. Minkoff K: An integrated treatment model for dual diagnosis of psychosis and addiction. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 40:1031-1036, 1989[Abstract/Free Full Text] 17. Mead S, Copeland ME: What recovery means to us: consumers perspectives. Community Mental Health Journal 36:315-328, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 18. Torrey WC, Wyzik P: The recovery vision as a service improvement guide for community mental health center providers. Community Mental Health Journal 36:209-216, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 19. Drake RE, Mercer-McFadden C, Mueser KT, et al: Review of integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment for patients with dual disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin 24:589-608, 1998 20. Ley A, Jeffery DP, McLaren S, et al: Treatment programmes for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse. Cochrane Library, Feb 1999. Available at http://www.update-software.com/cochrane/ cochrane-frame.html 21. Mercer-McFadden C, Drake RE, Brown NB, et al: The community support program demonstrations of services for young adults with severe mental illness and substance use disorders, 1987-1991. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 20(3):13-24, 1997 22. Detrick A, Stiepock V: Treating persons with mental illness, substance abuse, and legal problems: the Rhode Island experience. New Directions for Mental Health Services, no 56:65-77, 1992 23. Drake RE, McHugo G, Noordsy DL: Treatment of alcoholism among schizophrenic outpatients: four-year outcomes. American Journal of Psychiatry 150:328- 329, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text] 24. Durell J, Lechtenberg B, Corse S, et al: Intensive case management of persons with chronic mental illness who abuse substances. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 44:415-416, 1993[Free Full Text] 25. Meisler N, Blankertz L, Santos AB, et al: Impact of assertive community treatment on homeless persons with co-occurring severe psychiatric and substance use disorders. Community Mental Health Journal 33:113-122, 1997[CrossRef][Medline] 26. Drake RE, Goldman HH, Leff HS, et al: Implementing evidence-based practices in routine mental health service settings. Psychiatric Services 52:179-182, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text] 27. Godley SH, Hoewing-Roberson R, Godley MD: Final MISA Report. Bloomington, Ill, Lighthouse Institute, 1994 28. Jerrell JM, Ridgely MS: Comparative effectiveness of three approaches to serving people with severe mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 183:566-576, 1995[Medline] 29. Drake RE, Yovetich NA, Bebout RR, et al: Integrated treatment for dually diagnosed homeless adults. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 185:298-305, 1997[CrossRef][Medline] 30. Carmichael D, Tackett-Gibson M, Dell O, et al: Texas Dual Diagnosis Project Evaluation Report, 1997-1998. College Station, Tex, Texas A&M University, Public Policy Research Institute, 1998 31. Drake RE, McHugo GJ, Clark RE, et al: Assertive community treatment for patients with co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorder: a clinical trial. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 68:201-215, 1998[Medline] 32. Ho AP, Tsuang JW, Liberman RP, et al: Achieving effective treatment of patients with chronic psychotic illness and comorbid substance dependence. American Journal of Psychiatry 156:1765-1770, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text] 33. Brunette MF, Drake RE, Woods M, et al: A comparison of long-term and short-term residential treatment programs for dual diagnosis patients. Psychiatric Services 52:526-528, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text] 34. Barrowclough C, Haddock G, Tarrier N, et al: Randomised controlled trial of motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural intervention for schizophrenia patients with associated drug or alcohol misuse. American Journal of Psychiatry, in press 35. Havassy BE, Shopshire MS, Quigley LA: Effects of substance dependence on outcomes of patients in a randomized trial of two case management models. Psychiatric Services 51:639-644, 2000[Abstract/Free Full Text] 36. Osher FC, Kofoed LL: Treatment of patients with psychiatric and psychoactive substance use disorders. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 40:1025-1030, 1989[Abstract/Free Full Text] 37. McHugo GJ, Drake RE, Burton HL, et al: A scale for assessing the stage of substance abuse treatment in persons with severe mental illness. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 183:762-767, 1995[Medline] 38. Owen C, Rutherford V, Jones M, et al: Noncompliance in psychiatric aftercare. Community Mental Health Journal 33:25-34, 1997[CrossRef][Medline] 39. Hellerstein DJ, Rosenthal RN, Miner CR: A prospective study of integrated outpatient treatment for substance-abusing schizophrenic patients. American Journal on Addictions 42:33-42, 1995 40. Test MA, Wallish LS, Allness DG, et al: Substance use in young adults with schizophrenic disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin 15:465-476, 1989 41. Ziedonis D, Trudeau K: Motivation to quit using substances among individuals with schizophrenia: implications for a motivation-based treatment model. Schizophrenia Bulletin 23:229-238, 1997 42. Miller W, Rollnick S: Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behavior. New York, Guilford, 1991 43. Carey KB, Maisto SA, Carey MP, et al: Measuring readiness-to-change substance misuse among psychiatric outpatients: I. reliability and validity of self-report measures. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, in press 44. Roberts LJ, Shaner A, Eckman T: Overcoming Addictions: Skills Training for People With Schizophrenia. New York, Norton, 1999 45. Alverson H, Alverson M, Drake RE: An ethnographic study of the longitudinal course of substance abuse among people with severe mental illness. Community Mental Health Journal 36:557-569, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 46. Greenfield SF, Weiss RD, Tohen M: Substance abuse and the chronically mentally ill: a description of dual diagnosis treatment services in a psychiatric hospital. Community Mental Health Journal 31:265-278, 1995[CrossRef][Medline] 47. Drake RE, Mueser KT: Psychosocial approaches to dual diagnosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin 26:105-118, 2000 48. Jerrell JM, Ridgely MS: Impact of robustness of program implementation on outcomes of clients in dual diagnosis programs. Psychiatric Services 50:109-112, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text] 49. McHugo GJ, Drake RE, Teague GB, et al: Fidelity to assertive community treatment and client outcomes in the New Hampshire dual disorders study. Psychiatric Services 50:818-824, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text] 50. Rach-Beisel J, Scott J, Dixon L: Co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorders: a review of recent research. Psychiatric Services 50:1427-1434, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text] 51. Mueser KT, Bellack A, Blanchard J: Comorbidity of schizophrenia and substance abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60:845-856, 1992[CrossRef][Medline] Read More