Measuring recovery in opioid use disorder: clinical utility and psychometric properties of the Treatment Effectiveness Assessment

References

• Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel. What is recovery? A working definition from the Betty Ford Institute. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;33(3):221–228. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2007.06.00117889294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA’s working definition of recovery. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2012; Available from: https://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/PEP12-RECDEF/PEP12-RECDEF.pdf. Accessed 727, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Ling W, Farabee D, Liepa D, Wu LT. The Treatment Effectiveness Assessment (TEA): an efficient, patient-centered instrument for evaluating progress in recovery from addiction. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2012;3(1):129–136. doi:10.2147/SAR.S3890223580868
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Indivior Inc. Safety and tolerability study of depot buprenorphine in treatment seeking subjects with opioid use disorder. 3 29, 2018; Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02510014. Accessed 416, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Haight BR, Learned SM, Laffont CM, et al. Efficacy and safety of a monthly buprenorphine depot injection for opioid use disorder: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10173):778–790. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32259-130792007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacciola JS, Alterman AI, McLellan AT, Lin YT, Lynch KG. Initial evidence for the reliability and validity of a “Lite” version of the Addiction Severity Index. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;87(2–3):297–302. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.00217045423
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMillan DE, Gilmore-Thomas K. Stability of opioid craving over time as measured by visual analog scales. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996;40(3):235–239. doi:10.1016/0376-8716(96)01218-58861402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tompkins DA, Bigelow GE, Harrison JA, Johnson RE, Fudala PJ, Strain EC. Concurrent validation of the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) and single-item indices against the Clinical Institute Narcotic Assessment (CINA) opioid withdrawal instrument. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;105(1–2):154–159. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.07.00119647958
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handelsman L, Cochrane KJ, Aronson MJ, Ness R, Rubinstein KJ, Kanof PD. Two new rating scales for opiate withdrawal. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1987;13(3):293–308. doi:10.3109/009529987090015153687892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x21479777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B, Maruish ME. User’s Manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• O’Mahony PG, Rodgers H, Thomson RG, Dobson R, James OF. Is the SF-36 suitable for assessing health status of older stroke patients? Age Ageing. 1998;27(1):19–22.9504362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliva TA, Oliver RL, MacMillan IC. A catastrophe model for developing service satisfaction strategies. J Mark. 1992;56(3):83–95. doi:10.1177/002224299205600306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ling W, Nadipelli VR, Solem CT, et al. Impact of RBP-6000 (Once-Monthly Depot Buprenorphine) on patient-reported outcomes: a long-term study. Poster presented at: The American Society of Addiction Medicine 49th Annual Conference; 4 12–15; 2018; San Diego.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–415.2691207
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–592. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C12719681
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.01218177782
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froud R, Abel G. Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally: the forgotten lesson of pythagoras. Theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114468. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.011446825474472
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly JF, Abry AW, Milligan CM, Bergman BG, Hoeppner BB. On being “in recovery”: a national study of prevalence and correlates of adopting or not adopting a recovery identity among individuals resolving drug and alcohol problems. Psychol Addict Behav. 2018;32(6):595–604. doi:10.1037/adb000038630070538
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Nettleton S, Pickering L. What is the role of harm reduction when drug users say they want abstinence? Int J Drug Policy. 2011;22(3):189–193. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2010.09.00721055914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neale J, Vitoratou S, Finch E, et al. Development and validation of ‘sure’: a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) for recovery from drug and alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;165:159–167. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.06.00627344196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar