A Comparison of Perceptions, Reported Abstinence, and Completion Rates of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Clients in Substance Abuse Treatment

Abstract

A convenience sample of 120 gay, lesbian, and bisexual (gay/ bisexual) former clients of traditional substance abuse programs (i.e., programs with no specialized groups for the gay/bisexual population) and 107 heterosexual former clients of substance abuse programs, completed questionnaires regarding their perceptions of their treatment, outcomes, and reasons for leaving the programs they had attended in the previous six years. Gay/bisexual respondents reported lower levels of “connection” and “satisfaction with treatment” than did heterosexual participants, and gay/bisexual men reported far lower abstinence levels at the end of treatment and at the current time than did heterosexual men, heterosexual women, and gay/bisexual women. Gay/bisexual men were significantly less likely to have completed treatment and were more likely to have left treatment either because their needs were not being met or because they were discharged (for not meeting goals or breaking rules) than were the heterosexual men.

In a qualitative portion of the study, over half of the gay/bisexual respondents reported that their sexual orientation had negatively affected their treatment experiences. The results of this study support the clinical literature that stresses the need for a gay affirmative approach and specialized programming for the gay/bisexual population in substance abuse treatment.

KEYWORDS:

• gay
• lesbian
• bisexual
• substance abuse treatment
• alcohol treatment
• drug treatment

The researcher would like to thank Dr. Barbara Warren, Director of Organizational Development, Planning, and Research at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center in Manhattan, for allowing this study to recruit participants outside of 12-step meetings in the lobby of that facility, and would also like to thank the following faculty members of New York University Silver School of Social Work for their support of this study: Dr. Mary Ann Jones, Associate Professor, Dr. Shulamith Lala Ashenberg Straussner, Professor; and Dr. Diane Grodney, Clinical Associate Professor.

Notes

∗p ≤ .05.

∗∗p ≤ .01.

∗∗∗p ≤ .001.

^aFor Men, significance levels were based on ANOVA. For Women, Connection and Satisfaction have significantly different variances among the cohorts. Therefore, the Brown-Forsythe Robust Test of Equality of Means was used to establish significance levels. For Support and Honest/Open, significance levels were based on ANOVA. For Genders Combined, Connection, Support and Satisfaction have significantly different variances among the cohorts. Therefore, the Brown-Forsythe Robust Test of Equality of Means was used to establish significance levels. For Honest/Open, significance levels were based on ANOVA.

∗p≤ .05

∗∗p ≤ .01

∗∗∗p ≤ .001.

^aCompared to Male

^bCompared to Black, Hispanic, and Other

^cCompared to No Single Gender Groups or Program

^dCompared to Significant Other Not Invited

^eCompared to Outpatient Tx.

^fCompared to Heterosexual

∗p ≤ .05.

∗∗p ≤ .01.

∗∗∗p ≤ .001.

^aCompared to Male

^bCompared to Black, Hispanic, and Other

^cCompared to No Single Gender Groups or Program

^dCompared to Significant Other Not Invited

^eCompared to Outpatient Tx.

^fCompared to Heterosexual