Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A comparison of structural features and vulnerability between government and nongovernment alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment providers.
van de Ven, K; Ritter, A; Vuong, T; Livingston, M; Berends, L; Chalmers, J; Dobbins, T.
Afiliación
  • van de Ven K; Centre for Rural Criminology, School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia; Drug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: K.vandeVen@une.edu.au.
  • Ritter A; Drug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Vuong T; Drug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Livingston M; Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Berends L; TRACE Research; National Drug and Research Centre, UNSW, Australia.
  • Chalmers J; National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
  • Dobbins T; School of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
J Subst Abuse Treat ; 132: 108467, 2022 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34098205
OBJECTIVE: Both public (government-run), and not-for-profit (nongovernment) service providers provide alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services. Research has rarely studied the structural features of these providers, such as workforce characteristics, procurement arrangements, and funding security. The study reported here sought to document and analyze the differences between these two AOD treatment provider types in Australia. METHODS: The study administered an online survey instrument targeted at managers of AOD treatment sites. The survey comprised three sections: (1) the service (e.g., treatment types); (2) workforce (e.g., total number of staff); and (3) funding and procurement arrangements (e.g., contract length). The study completed a total of 207 site surveys. The studied compared government and nongovernment services on structural features that may create a more or less sustainable or vulnerable service (funding arrangements, payment mechanisms, and contract length). RESULTS: Government providers were more likely to provide medically oriented treatment types such as withdrawal management and pharmacotherapy, whereas nongovernment organization (NGO) providers were more likely to offer rehabilitation. Consistent with this, government services were more likely to employ medical professionals and nurses, indicative of a more medically oriented workforce, while NGO services were more likely to employ AOD workers, youth workers, peer workers, and counselors. Our data illustrate that NGO services were more likely to be subject to competitive tendering and to have shorter contract lengths, compared with government services, and overall to be more structurally vulnerable. CONCLUSION: Despite the reliance on NGOs to provide the majority of specialist care (71% of all treatment episodes in Australia), these services are more vulnerable than their government counterparts. To ensure that a comprehensive suite of treatment services is available, procurement arrangements that support stability and security in nongovernment service providers and government service providers are essential.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Gobierno Límite: Adolescent / Humans País/Región como asunto: Oceania Idioma: En Revista: J Subst Abuse Treat Asunto de la revista: TRANSTORNOS RELACIONADOS COM SUBSTANCIAS Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Gobierno Límite: Adolescent / Humans País/Región como asunto: Oceania Idioma: En Revista: J Subst Abuse Treat Asunto de la revista: TRANSTORNOS RELACIONADOS COM SUBSTANCIAS Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos