Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Assessing understandings of substance use disorders among Norwegian treatment professionals, patients and the general public

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Beliefs about substance use disorder (SUD) shape how patients, treatment professionals and the general public view addiction and its treatment. A U.S. developed scale exists to assess such beliefs, but it has never been tested in Norway nor normed on any general population sample.

Methods

The Short Understanding of Substance Abuse Scale (SUSS) was translated from English to Norwegian and used to assess beliefs about the nature of addiction among addiction treatment professionals (N = 291), patients with SUDs (N = 133) and respondents from the general public (N = 216). The disease and psychosocial model subscales of the SUSS were examined with a multigroup factor analysis to confirm that the constructs were invariant across the studied groups. We also controlled for demographic covariates in a multiple indicator multiple cause model.

Results

The multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of the SUSS yielded a partial scalar invariant model and thus, we were able to compare latent means between groups. In unadjusted comparisons, patients and the general public reported significantly higher endorsement of disease model beliefs than did professionals. However, the difference between professionals and the general public disappeared when the comparison was adjusted for covariates (i.e., age, gender, education). In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, the general public group but not the patient group scored significantly lower than professionals on the psychosocial belief scale.

Conclusion

The SUSS is useable with slight adaptations in Norwegian samples. Norwegian treatment professionals have different views of substance use disorder than do patients and the general public. This may create opportunities for dialogue and mutual learning, but also presents risk of miscommunication and distrust.
Literature
1.
Humphreys K, Noke JM, Moos RH. Recovering substance abuse staff members’ beliefs about addiction. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1996;13(1):75–8.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Moyers TB, Miller WR. Therapists’ conceptualizations of alcoholism: Measurement and implications for treatment decisions. Psychol Addict Behav. 1993;7(4):238–45.CrossRef
3.
Ouimette P, Humphreys K, Moos RH, Finney JW, Cronkite R, Federman B. Self-help group participation among substance use disorder patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2001;20(1):25–32.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Sheehan T, Owen P. The disease model. In: McCrady B, Epstein E, editors. Addictions - A comprehensive guidebook. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 268–86.
5.
Owen P, Marlatt GA. Should abstinence be the goal for alcohol treatment? Affirmative viewpoint. Am J Addict. 2001;10(4):289–95.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Smith BD, Manfredo IT. Frontline counselors in organizational contexts: a study of treatment practices in community settings. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2011;41(2):124–36.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bean-Bayog M. AA processes and Change: How does it work? In: McCrady B, Miller WR, editors. Research on alcoholics anonymous. New Brunswick: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies; 1993. p. 99–112.
8.
Humphreys K, Greenbaum MA, Noke JM, Finney JW. Reliability, validity, and normative data for a short version of the understanding of alcoholism scale. Psychol Addict Behav. 1996;10(1):38–44.CrossRef
9.
Cook CC. The Minnesota Model in the management of drug and alcohol dependency: miracle, method or myth? Part I. The philosophy and the programme. Br J Addict. 1988;83(6):625–34.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Anderson DJ, McGovern JP, DuPont RL. The origins of the Minnesota model of addiction treatment--a first person account. J Addict Dis. 1999;18(1):107–14.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Magura S. The relationship between substance user treatment and 12-step fellowships: current knowledge and research questions. Subst Use Misuse. 2007;42(2–3):343–60.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Meurk C, Carter A, Partridge B, Lucke J, Hall W. How is acceptance of the brain disease model of addiction related to Australians inverted question mark attitudes towards addicted individuals and treatments for addiction? BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14(1):9.CrossRef
14.
Burke AC, Clapp JD. Ideology and social work practice in substance abuse settings. Soc Work. 1997;42(6):552–62.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Moggi F, Giovanoli A, Sutter M, Humphreys K. Validity and reliability of the German version of the short understanding of substance abuse scale. Eur Addict Res. 2005;11(4):172–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Vederhus JK, Kristensen O, Laudet A, Clausen T. Attitudes towards 12-step groups and referral practices in a 12-step naive treatment culture; a survey of addiction professionals in Norway. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Vederhus JK, Laudet A, Kristensen O, Clausen T. Obstacles to 12-step group participation as seen by addiction professionals: comparing Norway to the United States. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2010;39(3):210–7.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Steinmetz H, Schmidt P, Tina-Booh A, Wieczorek S, Schwartz SH. Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: Differences between educational groups in human values measurement. Qual Quant. 2009;43(4):599–616.CrossRef
19.
Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthen B. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol Bull. 1989;105(3):456–66.CrossRef
20.
Gordoni G, Schmidt P, Gordoni Y. Measurement Invariance across Face-to-Face and Telephone Modes: The Case of Minority-Status Collectivistic-oriented Groups. Int J Public Opin Res. 2011;24(2):185–207.CrossRef
21.
Vederhus JK, Timko C, Kristensen O, Hjemdahl B, Clausen T. Motivational intervention to enhance post-detoxification 12-Step group affiliation: a randomized controlled trial. Addiction. 2014;109(5):766–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
23.
24.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.
26.
Gjersing L, Caplehorn JR, Clausen T. Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley; 1989.CrossRef
28.
Davidov E, Meuleman B, Cieciuch J, Schmidt P, Billiet J. Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annu Rev Sociol. 2014;40:55–75.CrossRef
29.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus. Statistical analysis with latent variables - user’s guide. 6th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2010.
30.
Stevens JP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 5th ed. New York: Routledge; 2009.
31.
Hu L-t, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55.CrossRef
32.
Little TD. Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2013.
33.
Steenkamp JEM, Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consum Res. 1998;25(1):78–107.CrossRef
34.
Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002;9(2):233–55.CrossRef
35.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.
36.
Thompson MS, Green SB. Evaluating between-group diffrences in latent variable means. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO, editors. Structural equation modeling - a second course. 2nd ed. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc; 2013. p. 163–218.
37.
Hancock GR. Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and MIMIC approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psychometrika. 2001;66(3):373–88.CrossRef
38.
Project MATCH Research Group. Matching alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998;22(6):1300–11.CrossRef
39.
40.
Stevenson FA, Barry CA, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley CP. Doctor-patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50(6):829–40.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Joosten EA, de Jong CA, de Weert-van Oene GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CP. Shared decision-making reduces drug use and psychiatric severity in substance-dependent patients. Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78(4):245–53.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Fakhoury WK, Priebe S, Quraishi M. Goals of new long-stay patients in supported housing: a UK study. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2005;51(1):45–54.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Koski-Jannes A, Hirschovits-Gerz T, Pennonen M. Population, professional, and client support for different models of managing addictive behaviors. Subst Use Misuse. 2012;47(3):296–308.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Meld.St. 30(2011–2012): Se meg! : en helhetlig rusmiddelpolitikk : alkohol - narkotika - doping. Oslo: Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet,.
45.
Duckert F. Controlled drinking’ - A complicated and contradictory field. In: Duckert F, Koski-Jännes A, Rönnberg S, editors. Perspectives on controlled drinking. Helsinki, Finland: Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research; 1989. p. 39–54.
46.
Hobbesland Å. Evaluation of detoxification treatment in six treatment centers in the Southern Health Region. Skien: Borgestadklinikken; 2006.
47.
Christakis NA, Fowler JH. Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Stat Med. 2013;32(4):556–77.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Brickman P, Rabinowitz VC, Karuza Jr J, Coates D, Cohn E, Kidder L. Models of helping and coping. Am Psychol. 1982;37(4):368–84.CrossRef
49.
Gossop M. Narcotics anonymous, twelve-step programmes, and rehabilitation treatments. In: Gossop M, editor. Drug addiction and its treatment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 157–77.
50.
Morojele NK, Stephenson GM. The Minnesota Model in the treatment of addictions: A social psychological assessment of changes in beliefs and attributions. J Community Appl Soc. 1992;2(1):25–41.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assessing understandings of substance use disorders among Norwegian treatment professionals, patients and the general public
Publication date
01-12-2016
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1306-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Health Services Research 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

External validation of a multivariable claims-based rule for predicting in-hospital mortality and 30-day post-pulmonary embolism complications

Study protocol

Outcome after polytrauma in a certified trauma network: comparing standard vs. maximum care facilities concept of the study and study protocol (POLYQUALY)

Study protocol

Access to timely formal dementia care in Europe: protocol of the Actifcare (ACcess to Timely Formal Care) study

Research article

Cost analysis of multiple sclerosis in Brazil: a cross-sectional multicenter study

Research article

Case management for the elderly with complex needs: cross-linking the views of their role held by elderly people, their informal caregivers and the case managers

Research article

The effect of increasing the supply of skilled health providers on pregnancy and birth outcomes: evidence from the midwives service scheme in Nigeria