Perceived Barriers to Treatment for Alcohol Problems: A Latent Class Analysis
Abstract
Objective:
Low rates of alcohol treatment seeking have been shown to be associated with perceived barriers to treatment, but heterogeneity in patterns of perceived barriers has not been explored. The study analyzed data from a population-based sample of adults with alcohol abuse and dependence in order to describe latent classes of individuals who reported one or more of 15 perceived barriers to seeking alcohol treatment and to identify characteristics associated with class membership.
Methods:
Data were from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (2001–2002). Analyses were restricted to treatment-naive adults with alcohol abuse or dependence who reported a perceived treatment need (N=1,053). Latent class analysis was performed to identify subgroups with respect to barriers to treatment. Latent class regression identified variables associated with each subgroup.
Results:
Two subgroups emerged: the low-barriers class (87%), characterized primarily by attitudinal barriers, and the high-barriers class (13%), characterized by significant attitudinal, financial, stigma, and readiness-for-change barriers. In both classes, the most frequently endorsed barrier was the attitudinal belief that “I should be strong enough” to handle the problem without treatment. Univariate analyses showed strong associations between membership in the high-barriers class and comorbid psychiatric disorders, alcohol dependence (compared with abuse), and a family history of alcohol problems. Multivariate analyses found significant associations with a lifetime anxiety disorder and with education level.
Conclusions:
Attitudinal barriers were most prevalent. Findings revealed a notable subgroup with multiple barriers, including financial and stigma-related barriers. This subgroup may require additional resources and support to enter treatment.
Alcohol use disorders are common and characterized by a low occurrence of treatment seeking among affected individuals (1–6). In the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, only 7.9% of participants with a past-year alcohol use disorder received treatment (7). Although some individuals successfully recover from an alcohol disorder without formal treatment (8), treatment has been shown to improve outcomes (9–13).
Factors related to treatment utilization for alcohol problems are multifaceted and complex. In this study, we drew on Andersen’s model of health service use, which identifies predisposing characteristics (social and demographic factors and personal health attitudes), enabling factors (financial and structural resources), and need as predictive of service utilization (14). Predisposing characteristics are the most distal predictors of service use, followed by enabling factors, with need (perceived or real) being most proximal. As we review below, previous alcohol treatment studies have established associations between many of Andersen’s factors and treatment utilization and have found perceived treatment need to be one of the strongest predictors. However, many individuals who perceive a treatment need also perceive barriers to treatment. These perceived barriers are an important impediment to treatment (4,7,15–18).
Andersen’s predisposing characteristics show the least robust associations with treatment utilization. Several studies have found that unmarried individuals are more likely to receive treatment for substance use disorders (1,2). Numerous studies have found that men are more likely to receive treatment (1,2,19–25), but others have found higher treatment rates among women (26,27). Similarly, studies have reported that individuals from racial-ethnic minority groups are more likely (4,20,23,28), as likely (1,21,29), or less likely to receive treatment (30,31) compared with non-Hispanic whites. Finally, studies have reported higher treatment rates among both older (1,3,25) and younger (20,23) individuals.
With regard to Andersen’s enabling factors, studies have found that individuals with higher income and education levels were less likely to receive substance use disorder treatment (1,2,19,20,28). These individuals may be more likely to have stigmatizing attitudes toward treatment, to consider themselves as having “more to lose,” or to have less severe drinking behaviors and consequences (1). Individuals who are uninsured also have been found to have lower rates of treatment (20,30,32), likely as a result of decreased access to or increased cost of services.
Treatment need, comprising both actual and perceived need, is identified by Andersen as one of the most proximal determinants of treatment (14). Yet the overwhelming majority of individuals with an alcohol use disorder (approximately 90%−95%) do not perceive a need for treatment (4,7,33). This hallmark of alcohol disorders may be the most pervasive impediment to treatment (18,33). For individuals with a perceived treatment need, perceived need has been shown to be one of the strongest predictors of treatment utilization (4,5,32,34,35). Factors associated with perceived need include age, marital status, family history of alcohol problems, severity of alcohol problems, and comorbid psychiatric problems (5,17,33,35). Disorder severity is another component of need: individuals are more likely to receive treatment if they experience alcohol dependence compared with abuse (1–3,36) or if they experience greater consequences of drinking (23,28,37). Comorbid psychiatric conditions are also strongly associated with treatment utilization (1,3,5,17,19,20); it is possible that comorbidity increases treatment need or that individuals who are receiving psychiatric treatment are more likely to be referred for alcohol treatment.
Even though perceived need is a strong proximal factor for treatment utilization, only 15%−30% of individuals with perceived treatment need receive treatment (1,2,7,34). Perceived barriers to treatment help explain this treatment gap, given that those who do not seek treatment typically report more barriers than treatment seekers (15,16). Attitudinal barriers, such as the belief that one should be “strong enough” to handle alcohol problems on one’s own, have consistently been found to be the most prevalent barriers (4,15–17,34). Previous studies have primarily examined prevalence and correlates of barriers. Little work has examined heterogeneity among individuals with respect to perceived barriers. It is likely that individuals who do not seek treatment can be categorized into subgroups characterized by distinct sets of perceived barriers.
In this study, we used latent class analysis (LCA) to examine data from a large, population-based survey of U.S. adults to identify subgroups of individuals with a lifetime alcohol use disorder and a perceived treatment need who do not seek treatment. In addition, we examined the associations between subgroup membership and factors previously shown to be associated with perceived need and treatment seeking. This study is one of the first to examine heterogeneity in barriers among treatment-naive individuals with a recognized treatment need. Identifying subgroups among those who do not seek treatment can inform screening and treatment outreach efforts and represents an important step toward increasing alcohol treatment.
Methods
Sample
Data are from wave 1 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (38,39). Face-to-face interviews assessed present and past alcohol consumption, utilization of alcohol treatment services, and an extensive diagnostic battery of substance use and psychiatric disorders. Wave 1 of the NESARC (N=43,093) was conducted in 2001–2002.
In total, 11,843 (27%) of wave 1 NESARC participants met DSM-IV criteria for a lifetime alcohol use disorder (lifetime alcohol abuse or dependence or both), the majority of whom had never received treatment (N=10,004). Of these treatment-naive individuals, only 10.5% (N=1,053) perceived a need for treatment as assessed by the following question: “Was there ever a time when you thought you should see a doctor, counselor, or other health professional or seek any other help for your drinking, but you didn’t go?” Questions regarding specific treatment barriers were asked only when individuals reported a perceived treatment need; thus our study sample consisted of the 1,053 treatment-naive individuals with a lifetime alcohol use disorder and a perceived treatment need. [A figure illustrating sample selection is available in an online supplement to this article.]
Assessment
Individuals who reported a perceived need were asked to identify reasons for not seeking treatment from a list of 26 barriers. In this analysis, a subset of 15 items was used because of infrequency of responses and content overlap of the remaining items.
Alcohol abuse and dependence, nonalcohol substance use disorders, and psychiatric conditions were assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule (40) on the basis of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. Individuals were classified as having a lifetime history of abuse only or of dependence with or without abuse. Mood disorders included in the analyses were major depressive disorder, dysthymia, and bipolar disorder. Anxiety disorders included generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, specific phobia, social phobia, and agoraphobia. Substance use disorders included abuse of or dependence on marijuana, stimulants, sedatives, tranquilizers, cocaine, heroin, opioids, inhalants, hallucinogens, and other drugs. Individuals were classified as having a lifetime history of a mood, anxiety, or nonalcohol substance use disorder if they met lifetime criteria for at least one mood, anxiety, or nonalcohol substance use disorder, respectively.
Other variables included in the analyses were sex, age (18–29, 30–49, and ≥50), race-ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and other), education (less than high school, high school, and greater than high school), household income (<$15,000, $15,000–$29,999, $30,000–$59,999, and ≥$60,000), insurance status (none, public, and private), whether the individual lived with a partner, and parental history of alcohol problems.
Statistical Analysis
LCA empirically identifies the structure of an underlying categorical latent variable based on observed patterns in latent class indicators (41). Using 15 NESARC items addressing specific barriers to treatment, we conducted LCA to identify subgroups of individuals with similar barrier patterns. To determine the optimal number of latent classes, we implemented LCA models with one to five classes and considered the following fit statistics: Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), adjusted BIC, Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (LMR LRT), and entropy (42–46). Lower values of AIC, BIC, and adjusted BIC indicate better fit, yet these statistics often marginally decrease with each additional class. To avoid overfitting the LCA model, we selected the class size associated with the last substantial decrease (47,48). As a sensitivity analysis, we also fit LCA models with all 26 items; the resulting class structures were highly similar; therefore, for parsimony we present the results from the 15-item LCA.
Latent class regression (LCR) was implemented to estimate the associations between covariates and latent class membership. Covariates that had previously been shown to be associated with perceived treatment need or treatment utilization were selected for inclusion in the LCR. Univariate (unadjusted) regressions were considered first, and all variables significant at the .20 level were included in the final multivariate (adjusted) LCR model. LCA and LCR were performed in Mplus version 7.11, which uses maximum likelihood estimation to obtain estimates of model parameters (49). All analyses accounted for NESARC survey weights, clustering, and stratification.
Results
Sample Characteristics
In our sample of 1,053 treatment-naive adults with a lifetime alcohol disorder and a perceived treatment need, the mean±SD age was 43.8±13.4 years; 68% were male; 76% were non-Hispanic white, 9% were Hispanic, 8% were non-Hispanic black, and 7% were from other racial-ethnic groups (Table 1). Eighty-three percent met lifetime criteria for alcohol dependence, and the remaining 17% met criteria for alcohol abuse. A parental history of alcohol problems was common: 52% reported paternal drinking problems, and 20% reported maternal drinking problems. Lifetime psychiatric disorders were prevalent: mood disorder, 56%; anxiety disorder, 40%; and nonalcohol substance use disorder, 52%.
| Variable | N | Weighted % |
|---|---|---|
| Demographic | ||
| Age | ||
| 18–29 | 164 | 17.6 |
| 30–49 | 556 | 54.1 |
| ≥50 | 333 | 28.4 |
| Male | 681 | 68.0 |
| Race-ethnicity | ||
| White | 663 | 76.2 |
| Black | 172 | 7.7 |
| Hispanic | 153 | 8.7 |
| Other | 65 | 7.4 |
| Living with partner | 466 | 56.1 |
| Education | ||
| Less than high school | 198 | 17.5 |
| High school | 327 | 31.8 |
| Greater than high school | 528 | 50.7 |
| Household income ($) | ||
| <15,000 | 232 | 16.7 |
| 15,000–29,999 | 251 | 20.1 |
| 30,000–59,999 | 323 | 34.5 |
| ≥60,000 | 247 | 28.7 |
| Insurance status | ||
| Private | 516 | 52.5 |
| Public (Medicare, Medicaid, or VA benefits) | 284 | 22.4 |
| None | 253 | 25.0 |
| Alcohol disorder risk and severity | ||
| Lifetime alcohol disorder | ||
| Abuse only | 195 | 16.8 |
| Dependence (with or without abuse) | 858 | 83.2 |
| Mother was a problem drinker | 217 | 21.1 |
| Father was a problem drinker | 497 | 51.8 |
| Comorbid psychiatric condition | ||
| Lifetime nonalcohol substance use disorder | ||
| Any | 535 | 52.1 |
| Marijuana | 423 | 41.5 |
| Cocaine | 264 | 24.9 |
| Stimulants | 193 | 18.6 |
| Hallucinogens | 151 | 13.6 |
| Opioids | 143 | 14.2 |
| Sedatives | 124 | 12.5 |
| Tranquilizers | 114 | 10.5 |
| Heroin | 41 | 2.8 |
| Inhalants | 40 | 3.0 |
| Other drugs | 14 | 1.4 |
| Lifetime mood disorder | 609 | 55.7 |
| Lifetime anxiety disorder | 411 | 40.0 |
| Perceived barriers (latent class indicators)b | ||
| Stigma | ||
| Was too embarrassed to discuss it with anyone | 200 | 18.5 |
| Afraid of what boss, friends, family, or others would think | 94 | 8.2 |
| Afraid I would lose my job | 31 | 2.7 |
| Attitudinal | ||
| Didn’t think anyone could help | 157 | 14.1 |
| Thought the problem would get better by itself | 343 | 32.9 |
| Thought I should be strong enough to handle [it] alone | 428 | 41.5 |
| Was afraid they would put me into the hospital | 83 | 8.9 |
| Readiness for change | ||
| Wanted to keep drinking or got drunk | 171 | 16.2 |
| Didn’t think drinking problem was serious enough | 205 | 20.6 |
| Stopped drinking on my own | 198 | 19.6 |
| Financial | ||
| Wanted to go, but health insurance didn't cover | 88 | 7.9 |
| Couldn’t afford to pay the bill | 148 | 14.2 |
| Structural | ||
| Didn’t know any place to go for help | 78 | 7.4 |
| Didn’t have any way to get there | 45 | 3.8 |
| Didn’t have time | 90 | 8.6 |
a
Data were from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, 2001–2002 (N=1,053).
b
Question stem for perceived barrier items: “I did not seek help because . . . ”
Consistent with previous studies (4,15–17,34), individuals primarily reported attitudinal barriers to treatment (Table 1). Most frequently reported was the belief that “I should be strong enough to handle [it] alone” (42%), followed by the belief that “the problem would get better by itself” (33%). In addition, 21% reported that their drinking problem “was not serious enough” to seek treatment. The most common stigma-related barrier was that an individual was “too embarrassed to discuss it with anyone” (19%). The most common financial barrier was that the individual “couldn’t afford to pay the bill” (14%). Structural barriers (“didn’t know any place to go for help,” “didn’t have any way to get there,” and “didn’t have time”) were the least frequently reported; each was endorsed by less than 10% of participants.
LCA Results
A two-class model was determined to be optimal on the basis of the information criteria statistics (AIC, BIC, and adjusted BIC) and the LMR LRT test (Table 2). This model had an estimated entropy of .89, indicating good class differentiation (44). We characterized the two classes as the high-barriers class and the low-barriers class, with a majority of individuals (87%) belonging to the low-barriers class. Individuals in the low-barriers class were moderately likely to endorse several attitudinal barriers and relatively less likely to endorse other items for all of the remaining items (Figure 1). The most commonly endorsed item for the low-barriers class was “I thought I should be strong enough to handle [it] alone” (36%), followed by “the problem will get better by itself” (27%), and “I stopped drinking on my own” (16%).
| N of classes | N of free parameters | AIC | BIC | Adjusted BIC | Entropy | LMR LRT p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15 | 11,988.37 | 12,062.56 | 12,014.92 | na | na |
| 2 | 31 | 11,174.34 | 11,327.67 | 11,229.21 | .89 | .00 |
| 3 | 47 | 11,104.03 | 11,336.49 | 11,187.22 | .67 | .56 |
| 4 | 63 | 11,047.19 | 11,358.78 | 11,158.69 | .73 | .58 |
| 5 | 79 | 10,979.49 | 11,370.22 | 11,119.31 | .78 | .37 |
a
AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; LMR LRT, Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test
FIGURE 1. Weighted probability of endorsing 15 perceived barriers to treatment among adults with a lifetime alcohol use disorder and a perceived treatment need, by latent classa
a Data were from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, 2001–2002 (N=1,053).
In contrast, 13% of individuals were estimated to belong to the high-barriers class, characterized by a moderate to high probability of endorsement across all items. Indeed, for every individual item, the probability of endorsement was higher for the high-barriers class than for the low-barriers class. As in the low-barriers class, the most commonly endorsed items were “I should be should be strong enough to handle [it] on my own” (77%) and “the problem will get better by itself” (71%). However, the high-barriers class also reported stigma, lack of readiness for change, and financial and structural barriers. For example, 62% of individuals in the high-barriers class were “too embarrassed to discuss it with anyone,” compared with 12% in the low-barriers class; 59% “wanted to keep drinking or got drunk,” compared with 10% in the low-barriers class; 45% were “afraid of what boss, friends, family, or others would think,” compared with 3% in the low-barriers class; and 43% “couldn’t afford to pay the bill,” compared with 10% in the low-barriers class. In summary, the classes were similar in that the most common barrier for both classes was attitudinal; yet the high-barriers class faced notably more barriers across multiple domains.
LCR Results
LCR was conducted to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted associations between class membership and personal characteristics, including demographic characteristics, alcohol disorder severity, family history of alcohol problems, and comorbid conditions. We present the estimated odds ratios (ORs) for being in the high-barriers class relative to the low-barriers class for each covariate (Table 3). In the univariate analyses, all variables except race-ethnicity, insurance status, and partner status were associated with class membership at the p<.20 level; these three variables were not included in the multivariate analysis. Alcohol dependence, compared with alcohol abuse, was significantly associated with the high-barriers class (OR=2.63, p=.02). A maternal history of alcohol problems was also predictive of being in the high-barriers class (OR=1.91, p=.02), and a paternal history was associated at the trend level (OR=1.61, p=.08). A lifetime mood disorder, anxiety disorder, and nonalcohol substance use disorder were each significantly associated with the high-barriers class (OR=2.36, OR=2.81, and OR=2.07, respectively; all p<.05).
| Covariate | ORa | 95% CI | AORb | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic characteristic | ||||
| Age (reference: ≥50) | ||||
| 18–29 | 1.75†† | .79–3.92 | 1.13 | .40–3.16 |
| 30–49 | .85 | .48–1.51 | .71 | .35–1.44 |
| Male (reference: female) | .67†† | .39–1.14 | 1.15 | .59–2.24 |
| Race-ethnicity (reference: white) | ||||
| Black | .75 | .32–1.78 | ||
| Hispanic | .89 | .42–1.92 | ||
| Other | .79 | .28–2.22 | ||
| Living with partner | .73 | .45–1.19 | ||
| Education (reference: less than high school) | ||||
| High school | 1.56 | .67–3.61 | 1.95 | .71–5.40 |
| Greater than high school | 1.96†† | .82–4.70 | 2.70* | 1.08–6.72 |
| Household income ($) (reference: ≥60,000) | ||||
| <15,000 | 1.75†† | .78–3.96 | 2.07† | .93–4.60 |
| 15,000–29,999 | 1.51 | .66–3.46 | 1.46 | .65–3.25 |
| 30,000–59,999 | 1.69 | .76–3.75 | 1.60 | .68–3.76 |
| Insurance (reference: private) | ||||
| None | 1.08 | .55–2.12 | ||
| Public (Medicare, Medicaid, or VA benefits) | 1.26 | .66–2.39 | ||
| Alcohol risk and severity | ||||
| Lifetime alcohol dependence (with or without abuse) (reference: abuse only | 2.63* | 1.16–5.94 | 1.52 | .58–4.03 |
| Mother was a problem drinker (reference: no) | 1.91* | 1.12–3.23 | 1.79† | .98–3.30 |
| Father was a problem drinker (reference: no) | 1.61† | .94–2.75 | 1.22 | .73–2.03 |
| Comorbid psychiatric condition (reference: no) | ||||
| Lifetime nonalcohol substance disorder | 2.07* | 1.08–3.96 | 1.66 | .80–3.42 |
| Lifetime mood disorder | 2.36* | 1.19–4.67 | 1.76 | .77–4.04 |
| Lifetime anxiety disorder | 2.81* | 1.58–4.97 | 1.93* | 1.06–3.53 |
a
Reflects unadjusted (univariate) associations
b
Reflects adjusted (multivariate) associations
*
p<.05, †p<.10, ††p<.20
In the adjusted model, a lifetime anxiety disorder was significantly associated with the high-barriers class (AOR=1.93, p=.03). The association with maternal history of alcohol problems was attenuated and significant at the trend level (AOR=1.79, p=.06), but the association with alcohol dependence was no longer significant (greater than high school compared with less than high school, AOR=1.52, p=.40). A higher education level was significantly associated with the high-barriers class (AOR=2.70 p=.03). Finally, lower income was associated with the high-barriers class at the trend level (<$15,000 compared with ≥$60,000, AOR=2.07, p=.08).
Discussion
We conducted a novel analysis that identified heterogeneous subgroups with respect to perceived alcohol treatment barriers among treatment-naive adults with a lifetime alcohol disorder and a perceived treatment need. In this population-based sample, individuals were best characterized as belonging to one of two distinct groups, characterized as the low-barriers class and the high-barriers class. The vast majority of individuals (87%) were in the low-barriers class and endorsed primarily attitudinal barriers to alcohol treatment. Individuals in the high-barriers class (13%) represented a small but important subgroup that endorsed a complex set of attitudinal, readiness-to-change, structural, financial, and stigma barriers.
Attitudinal barriers were the most commonly reported barriers across both classes, consistent with previous studies (4,15–17,34). Furthermore, for a majority of individuals, the only perceived barriers were attitudinal. Given that attitudinal barriers may be the most modifiable, our findings suggest that interventions to reduce the stigma of alcohol treatment and to increase motivation for behavior change may be effective and sufficient for the majority of individuals with perceived treatment barriers. To this end, we endorse the use of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in primary care (50). SBIRT’s screening component may be particularly beneficial for individuals with no perceived treatment need, who constitute the majority of individuals with alcohol problems. The brief intervention component could include motivational interviewing (51), which may be beneficial to individuals with attitudinal barriers. Routine screening may encourage discussion with health care providers. Similar screening campaigns for depression have been successful at increasing awareness, reducing stigma, and increasing treatment uptake (29). Although physicians are increasingly implementing such evidence-based practices, many still report feeling uncomfortable asking patients about alcohol and other substance use. Medical education should seek to improve clinician self-efficacy in discussing alcohol and other substance use problems with patients. Furthermore, we believe that alcohol screening could be augmented to include several screening items regarding treatment barriers. This would help clinicians identify whether individuals primarily face attitudinal barriers or a more complex set of barriers, which could aid in decisions regarding treatment and supportive services.
Our results also highlight independent associations of several factors with the high-barriers class: alcohol dependence, family history of alcohol problems, and comorbid psychiatric disorders. These factors have previously been found to be associated with treatment seeking and perceived barriers (1,3,5,19,20,33,36). The observed attenuations in the adjusted model may be due to the co-occurrence of these factors. For example, 88% of those with a maternal history of alcohol problems and 86% of those with a paternal history met criteria for alcohol dependence rather than abuse. Overall, we found that lifetime psychiatric disorders, particularly anxiety, were associated with belonging to the high-barriers class. Increasing integration of substance use and mental health services may promote treatment uptake by this population.
This analysis is a cross-sectional description of class membership. Membership may change over the course of an individual’s alcohol use disorder because of shifts in readiness for change, attitudes, or life circumstances. These classes may reflect individuals at different stages of change as described by the transtheoretical model of change (52): individuals who are farther from the action stage may belong to the high-barriers class and may transition to the low-barriers class as they near the action stage. Alternatively, changes in employment, financial circumstances, or relationship status may affect barriers and result in shifts between classes.
Several limitations deserve mention. First, this analysis was not designed to identify causal associations. Because of the cross-sectional nature of the data, we cannot establish temporal ordering of covariates and class membership. For example, we were not able to establish whether psychiatric disorders were present during the period of perceived treatment need. Second, social and temporal trends regarding stigma and treatment accessibility over the past decade may somewhat limit the generalizability of our findings. Although national surveys indicate that rates of alcohol treatment seeking have remained essentially flat since the NESARC data were collected (2001–2002) (7), data are lacking regarding temporal trends in perceived barriers. Third, although the use of LCA accounted for measurement error with regard to barriers to treatment (41,53), our analysis may still be subject to misclassification bias. Furthermore, all NESARC data were self-reported and thus may be subject to recall bias or social desirability bias. Finally, NESARC data were limited to barriers from the participants’ perspectives and did not include information regarding barriers at the provider, state, or national level.
Conclusions
This study identified two distinct subgroups among treatment-naive adults with a lifetime alcohol use disorder and a perceived treatment need. Our results highlight that the majority of individuals face few, and primarily attitudinal, barriers and that a notable subset faces a complex set of barriers. Routine screening may help identify individuals with an alcohol use disorder who do not seek treatment. Individuals in the low-barriers class may benefit from motivational interviewing, and those in the high-barriers class may require more innovative and comprehensive treatment strategies.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.201400160.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 47.34 KB
References
1.
Cohen E, Feinn R, Arias A, et al: Alcohol treatment utilization: findings from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 86:214–221, 2007
2.
Hasin DS, Stinson FS, Ogburn E, et al: Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry 64:830–842, 2007
3.
Grella CE, Karno MP, Warda US, et al: Perceptions of need and help received for substance dependence in a national probability survey. Psychiatric Services 60:1068–1074, 2009
4.
Oleski J, Mota N, Cox BJ, et al: Perceived need for care, help seeking, and perceived barriers to care for alcohol use disorders in a national sample. Psychiatric Services 61:1223–1231, 2010
5.
Mojtabai R, Olfson M, Mechanic D: Perceived need and help-seeking in adults with mood, anxiety, or substance use disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry 59:77–84, 2002
6.
Regier DA, Narrow WE, Rae DS, et al: The de facto US mental and addictive disorders service system: Epidemiologic Catchment Area prospective 1-year prevalence rates of disorders and services. Archives of General Psychiatry 50:85–94, 1993
7.
Results From the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. NSDUH series H-48, HHS pub no SMA 14-4863. Rockville, Md, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014
8.
Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, et al: Recovery from DSM-IV alcohol dependence: United States, 2001–2002. Addiction 100:281–292, 2005
9.
Dawson DA, Grant BF, Stinson FS, et al: Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence. Addiction 101:824–834, 2006
10.
Miller WR, Brown J, Simpson T, et al: What works? A methodological analysis of the alcohol treatment outcome literature; in Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches: Effective Alternatives. Edited by Hester R, Miller WR. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 1995
11.
Miller WR, Wilbourne PL: Mesa Grande: a methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders. Addiction 97:265–277, 2002
12.
Moos RH, Moos BS: Rates and predictors of relapse after natural and treated remission from alcohol use disorders. Addiction 101:212–222, 2006
13.
Timko C, Debenedetti A, Billow R: Intensive referral to 12-Step self-help groups and 6-month substance use disorder outcomes. Addiction 101:678–688, 2006
14.
Andersen RM: Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? Journal of Health and Social Behavior 36:1–10, 1995
15.
Saunders SM, Zygowicz KM, D’Angelo BR: Person-related and treatment-related barriers to alcohol treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 30:261–270, 2006
16.
Cunningham JA, Sobell LC, Sobell MB, et al: Barriers to treatment: why alcohol and drug abusers delay or never seek treatment. Addictive Behaviors 18:347–353, 1993
17.
Kaufman CN, Chen LY, Crum RM, et al: Treatment seeking and barriers to treatment for alcohol use in persons with alcohol use disorders and comorbid mood or anxiety disorders. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 49:1489–1499, 2014
18.
Mojtabai R, Chen LY, Kaufmann CN, et al: Comparing barriers to mental health treatment and substance use disorder treatment among individuals with comorbid major depression and substance use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 46:268–273, 2014
19.
Wu LT, Ringwalt CL, Williams CE: Use of substance abuse treatment services by persons with mental health and substance use problems. Psychiatric Services 54:363–369, 2003
20.
Ilgen MA, Price AM, Burnett-Zeigler I, et al: Longitudinal predictors of addictions treatment utilization in treatment-naïve adults with alcohol use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 113:215–221, 2011
21.
Alvanzo AAH, Storr CL, Mojtabai R, et al: Gender and race/ethnicity differences for initiation of alcohol-related service use among persons with alcohol dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 140:48–55, 2014
22.
Dawson DA: Correlates of past-year status among treated and untreated persons with former alcohol dependence: United States, 1992. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 20:771–779, 1996
23.
Kaskutas LA, Weisner C, Caetano R: Predictors of help seeking among a longitudinal sample of the general population, 1984–1992. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 58:155–161, 1997
24.
Raimo EB, Daeppen JB, Smith TL, et al: Clinical characteristics of alcoholism in alcohol-dependent subjects with and without a history of alcohol treatment. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 23:1605–1613, 1999
25.
Tighe E, Saxe L: Community-based substance abuse reduction and the gaps between treatment need and treatment utilization: analysis of data from the “Fighting Back” general population survey. Journal of Drug Issues 36:295–312, 2006
26.
Harris AHS, Bowe T: Predictors of initiation and engagement in VA substance use disorder treatment. Psychological Services 5:228–238, 2008
27.
Weisner C, Mertens J, Tam T, et al: Factors affecting the initiation of substance abuse treatment in managed care. Addiction 96:705–716, 2001
28.
Weisner C, Matzger H, Tam T, et al: Who goes to alcohol and drug treatment? Understanding utilization within the context of insurance. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 63:673–682, 2002
29.
Keyes KM, Hatzenbuehler ML, Alberti P, et al: Service utilization differences for axis I psychiatric and substance use disorders between white and black adults. Psychiatric Services 59:893–901, 2008
30.
Wu LT, Kouzis AC, Schlenger WE: Substance use, dependence, and service utilization among the US uninsured nonelderly population. American Journal of Public Health 93:2079–2085, 2003
31.
Schmidt LA, Ye Y, Greenfield TK, et al: Ethnic disparities in clinical severity and services for alcohol problems: results from the National Alcohol Survey. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 31:48–56, 2007
32.
Katz SJ, Kessler RC, Frank RG, et al: The use of outpatient mental health services in the United States and Ontario: the impact of mental morbidity and perceived need for care. American Journal of Public Health 87:1136–1143, 1997
33.
Edlund MJ, Booth BM, Feldman ZL: Perceived need for treatment for alcohol use disorders: results from two national surveys. Psychiatric Services 60:1618–1628, 2009
34.
Mojtabai R, Crum RM: Perceived unmet need for alcohol and drug use treatments and future use of services: results from a longitudinal study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 127:59–64, 2013
35.
Edlund MJ, Unützer J, Curran GM: Perceived need for alcohol, drug, and mental health treatment. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 41:480–487, 2006
36.
Kessler RC, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Berglund PA, et al: Patterns and predictors of treatment seeking after onset of a substance use disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 58:1065–1071, 2001
37.
Finney JW, Moos RH: Entering treatment for alcohol abuse: a stress and coping model. Addiction 90:1223–1240, 1995
38.
Grant BF, Stinson FS, Dawson DA, et al: Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance use disorders and independent mood and anxiety disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry 61:807–816, 2004
39.
Grant BF, Dawson DA: Introduction to the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Alcohol Research and Health 29:74–78, 2006
40.
Grant BF, Dawson DA, Stinson FS, et al: The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-IV (AUDADIS-IV): reliability of alcohol consumption, tobacco use, family history of depression and psychiatric diagnostic modules in a general population sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 71:7–16, 2003
41.
Collins LM, Lanza ST: Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences. New York, Wiley, 2010
42.
Akaike H: A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19:716–723, 1974
43.
Schwartz GE: Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6:461–464, 1978
44.
Sclove SL: Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika 52:333–343, 1987
45.
Lo Y, Mendell NR, Rubin DB: Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika 88:767–778, 2001
46.
Celeux G, Soromenho G: An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification 13:195–212, 1996
47.
Landa RJ, Gross AL, Stuart EA, et al: Latent class analysis of early developmental trajectory in baby siblings of children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines 53:986–996, 2012
48.
Petras H, Masyn K: General growth mixture analysis with antecedents and consequences of change; in Handbook of Quantitative Criminology. Edited by Piquero AR, Weisburd D. New York, Springer, 2010
49.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO: Mplus User’s Guide, 7th ed. Los Angeles, Muthén & Muthén, 2012
50.
Babor TF, McRee BG, Kassebaum PA, et al: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): toward a public health approach to the management of substance abuse. Substance Abuse 28:7–30, 2007
51.
Miller WR, Rollnick S: Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. New York, Guilford, 1991
52.
Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: Toward a comprehensive model of change; in Treating Addictive Behaviors: Processes of Change. Edited by Miller WR, Heather N. New York, Plenum, 1986
53.
Flaherty BP: Assessing reliability of categorical substance use measures with latent class analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 68(suppl 1):S7–S20, 2002
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Horse Drawn Cabs at Evening, New York, by Childe Hassam, circa 1890. Watercolor. Daniel J. Terra Collection, 199.66. Terra Foundation for American Art. Photo credit: Terra Foundation for American Art, Chicago/Art Resource, New York City.
History
Received: 14 April 2014
Revision received: 29 January 2015
Accepted: 16 March 2015
Published online: 3 August 2015
Published in print: November 01, 2015
Authors
Competing Interests
Dr. Mojtabai has received consulting fees from Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism10.13039/100000027: AA016346
National Institute on Drug Abuse10.13039/100000026: DA030460, P50DA010075, T32DA017629
This work was funded by grant AA016346 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA); grants DA030460, P50DA010075, and T32DA017629 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); and the Sommer Scholar program at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIAAA, NIDA, or the National Institutes of Health.Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).