...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy >Addressing substance abuse and violence in substance use disorder treatment and batterer intervention programs
【24h】

Addressing substance abuse and violence in substance use disorder treatment and batterer intervention programs

机译：在药物滥用障碍治疗和殴打者干预计划中解决药物滥用和暴力

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background Substance use disorders and perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) are interrelated, major public health problems. Methods We surveyed directors of a sample of substance use disorder treatment programs (SUDPs; N=241) and batterer intervention programs (BIPs; N=235) in California (70% response rate) to examine the extent to which SUDPs address IPV, and BIPs address substance abuse. Results Generally, SUDPs were not addressing co-occurring IPV perpetration in a formal and comprehensive way. Few had a policy requiring assessment of potential clients, or monitoring of admitted clients, for violence perpetration; almost one-quarter did not admit potential clients who had perpetrated IPV, and only 20% had a component or track to address violence. About one-third suspended or terminated clients engaging in violence. The most common barriers to SUDPs providing IPV services were that violence prevention was not part of the program’s mission, staff lacked training in violence, and the lack of reimbursement mechanisms for such services. In contrast, BIPs tended to address substance abuse in a more formal and comprehensive way; e.g., one-half had a policy requiring potential clients to be assessed, two-thirds required monitoring of substance abuse among admitted clients, and almost one-half had a component or track to address substance abuse. SUDPs had clients with fewer resources (marriage, employment, income, housing), and more severe problems (both alcohol and drug use disorders, dual substance use and other mental health disorders, HIV + status). We found little evidence that services are centralized for individuals with both substance abuse and violence problems, even though most SUDP and BIP directors agreed that help for both problems should be obtained simultaneously in separate programs. Conclusions SUDPs may have difficulty addressing violence because they have a clientele with relatively few resources and more complex psychological and medical needs. However, policy change can modify barriers to treatment integration and service linkage, such as reimbursement restrictions and lack of staff training.
机译：背景物质使用障碍和亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）犯罪是相互关联的重大公共卫生问题。方法我们在加利福尼亚州对物质使用障碍治疗计划（SUDPs; N = 241）和殴打者干预计划（BIPs; N = 235）的样本进行了调查（有70％的回复率），以调查SUDP解决IPV的程度，以及BIP解决药物滥用问题。结果通常，SUDP不能以正式和综合的方式解决IPV并发问题。很少有政策要求评估潜在客户或监视接纳的客户的暴力行为;几乎四分之一的人不承认实施IPV的潜在客户，只有20％的人有解决暴力的成分或途径。约有三分之一暂停或终止了参与暴力的客户。 SUDP提供IPV服务的最常见障碍是，预防暴力不是该计划任务的一部分，工作人员缺乏暴力方面的培训，并且缺乏此类服务的报销机制。相比之下，BIP倾向于以更正式，更全面的方式解决药物滥用问题。例如，一半的政策要求对潜在客户进行评估，三分之二要求对接受的客户中的药物滥用进行监控，而近一半的企业有解决药物滥用的内容或跟踪。 SUDP的客户资源较少（婚姻，就业，收入，住房），问题更严重（酒精和毒品使用失调，双重物质使用和其他心理健康失调，HIV +状况）。尽管大多数SUDP和BIP主管都同意应同时在单独的程序中同时获得这两个问题的帮助，但我们发现几乎没有证据表明该服务是针对患有药物滥用和暴力问题的个人而集中提供的。结论SUDP可能难以解决暴力问题，因为它们的客户群资源相对较少，心理和医疗需求更为复杂。但是，政策变更可以改变治疗整合和服务联系的障碍，例如报销限制和缺乏员工培训。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号