Skip to main content

Table 2 Satisfaction levels among dual diagnosis clients by type of treatment model

From: Dual diagnosis clients' treatment satisfaction - a systematic review

Author

Sample

Treatment intervention

Control condition

Satisfaction levels between groups

Treatment fidelity

Aguilera et al. (1999) [38]

N = 86

Main DD: mood disorder + polydrug misuse

DD treatment

(n = 40)

Drug/alcohol treatment

(n = 46)

No difference in treatment satisfaction scores. Results of statistical tests not reported.

Not reported

Anderson (1999) [37]

N = 225

Main DD: psychosis + polydrug misuse

DD treatment

(n = 76)

Drug/alcohol treatment

(n = 149)

Higher satisfaction levels among intervention group

(n = 42) but relevant tests not reported.

Not reported

Clark et al. (2008) [41]

N = 2,729

Main DD: unspecified + history of trauma

Trauma-focused DD treatment

(n = 1,415)

Mental health or drug/alcohol treatment

(n = 1,314)

Intervention group had higher satisfaction scores at follow-ups

(3-month: F = 8.77, p < 0.01; 6-month: F = 4.07, p < 0.05).

Not reported

Craig et al. (2008) [52]

N = 232

Main DD: psychosis + alcohol misuse

DD treatment

(n = 127)

Mental health treatment

(n = 105)

No significant differences in satisfaction levels

(CSQ: p = 0.39, TPQ: p = 0.62).

Not reported

Daughters et al. (2008) [44]

N = 44

Main DD: mood and anxiety disorders + cocaine misuse

Depression-focused DD treatment

(n = 22)

Drug/alcohol treatment

(n = 22)

The intervention group reported significantly higher satisfaction levels (p < 0.01).

High levels of treatment fidelity (mean = 7.3 on 9-point Likert scale).

Morse et al. (2006) [30]

N = 149

Main DD: schizophrenia + alcohol misuse

Assertive DD treatment

(IACT; n = 46)

1. Assertive mental health treatment

(ACTO; n = 54)

2. Standard mental health or drug / alcohol treatment

(SC; n = 49)

Clients in the IACT and ACTO programme were significantly more satisfied than SC clients

(p = 0.03). 1, 2

Treatment diffusion between IACT and ACTO. 3

Morse et al. (2008) - based on [30] - [31]

N = 270

Main DD: schizophrenia + alcohol misuse

New assertive DD treatment

(NIACT; n = 79)

1. IACT (n = 61)

2. ACTO (n = 65)

3. SC (n = 65)

Clients in the NIACT programme were significantly more satisfied than clients in the other 3 programmes

(p < 0.001).

High level of treatment fidelity in the NIACT model. 4

  1. Key: DD = dual diagnosis
  2. 1 No significant differences in satisfaction levels between the IACT and ACTO groups (no statistics reported). No main effect of time (p = 0.32).
  3. 2 Updated findings of this study were published by Fletcher et al. (2008) including results from additional satisfaction assessments: 3 months: IACT = 5.10 (0.72), ACTO = 5.23 (0.84), SC = 4.76 (1.06), 15 months: IACT = 4.79 (1.18), ACTO = 5.10 (1.16), SC = 5.00 (0.95), and 30 months: IACT = 4.20 (0.35), ACTO = 4.15 (0.52), SC = 4.36 (0.38).
  4. 3 Treatment fidelity of different service components was measured using 5-point Likert scales. Treatment diffusion between IACT and ACTO: substance abuse components were only partially implemented in IACT, evidence of addiction-focused interventions and DD training in ACTO.
  5. 4 Mean fidelity scores ranged from 3.9-4.1 using 5-point Likert scales (same as in Morse et al. 2006).
Back to article page

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us