Adaptive Treatment for Alcohol and Cocaine Dependence

Detailed Summary

1. Primary objective #1: Determine the relative effectiveness of MI-IOP and MI-PC in the full study sample with regard to treatment engagement over weeks 1-12 and cocaine/alcohol use over weeks 1-24. * Hypothesis 1: An intervention that explores several possible treatment options with the patient and provides the chosen option (e.g., MI-PC) will produce higher rates of treatment engagement than an intervention focused on engagement in IOP only (e.g., MI-IOP). * Hypothesis 2: An intervention that explores several possible treatment options with the patient and provides the chosen option (e.g., MI-PC) will produce better cocaine/alcohol use outcomes than an intervention focused on engagement in IOP only (MI-IOP). * Secondary analysis 1: Among the Non-engaged patients, determine rates of selection of each of the three options in MI-PC, retention rates within each option, and cocaine/alcohol use outcomes in each option. * Secondary analysis 2: Among the Engaged patients, determine rates of selection of each of the three options in MI-PC, retention rates within each option, and cocaine/alcohol use outcomes in each option. 2. Primary objective #2: Determine whether the relative effectiveness of MI-IOP and MI-PC varies as a function of engagement group, with regard to treatment engagement over weeks 1-12 and cocaine/alcohol use outcomes over weeks 1-24. * Hypothesis 1: The predicted main effect on retention favoring MI-PC over MI-IOP will be significantly larger among patients in the Non-engaged group than among those in the Engaged group. * Hypothesis 2: The predicted main effect on cocaine/alcohol use outcomes favoring MI-PC over MI-IOP will be significantly larger among patients in the Non-engaged group than among those in the Engaged group.

Study Details

Timeline

Interventions