Skip to main content
. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 1):233–259. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00114

Table 3.

Comparisons of Effectiveness of Modalities, Defined as Abstinence or Reduction in Use and Stratified According to the Propensities of Receiving Treatment in One Modality versus Another

Propensity Score Strata N in Modalitiesa Abstinence OR (95% CI) Reduction in Use OR (95% CI)
Inpatient (INP) versus Outpatient Drug-free (OP)
1 Propensity: ↓INP↑OP NINP=17 NOP=160 1.42 (0.43–4.58) 3.38 (1.07–10.67)*
2 64 116 0.88 (0.41–1.88) 2.01 (1.04–3.87)*
3 82 92 1.08 (0.48–2.41) 0.83 (0.44–1.55)
4 125 52 0.92 (0.45–1.91) 0.75 (0.38–1.49)
5 Propensity: ↑INP↓OP 145 32 0.67 (0.26–1.71) 0.91 (0.40–2.06)
Conditional logistic regression 433 452 0.96 (0.67–1.38) 1.14 (0.84–1.56)
Residential (RES) versus Outpatient Drug-free (OP)
1 Propensity: ↓RES↑OP NRES=34 NOP=138 0.27 (0.08–0.97)* 0.50 (0.20–1.24)
2 70 103 0.52 (0.20–1.33) 0.91 (4.50–1.85)
3 85 85 1.57 (0.63–3.89) 0.66 (0.34–1.26)
4 119 53 1.77 (0.71–4.40) 0.95 (0.48–1.89)
5 Propensity: ↑RES↓OP 136 35 1.52 (0.62–3.74) 1.27 (0.60–2.72)
Conditional logistic regression 444 414 0.95 (0.66–1.36) 0.81 (0.61–1.09)
Detox/Methadone (DT/MT) versus Outpatient Drug-free (OP)
1 Propensity: ↑DT/MT↓OP NDT/MT=30 NOP=144 1.63 (0.44–6.03) 2.50 (0.90–6.96)
2 42 131 1.52 (0.61–3.74) 0.81 (0.36–1.82)
3 82 92 0.87 (0.41–1.84) 1.35 (0.70–2.59)
4 96 77 0.70 (0.33–1.45) 0.67 (0.35–1.29)
5 Propensity: ↑DT/MT↓OP 165 8 0.86 (0.10–7.56) 1.09 (0.24–5.00)
Conditional logistic regression 415 452 0.86 (0.58–1.26) 1.08 (0.78–1.49)
Inpatient (INP) versus Detox/Methadone (DT/MT)
1 Propensity: ↓INP↑DT/MT NINP=21 NDT/MT=49 1.65 (0.51–5.35) 0.95 (0.36–2.47)
2 59 111 1.14 (0.49–2.63) 1.46 (0.74–2.90)
3 101 72 0.67 (0.30–1.50) 0.81 (0.41–1.59)
4 113 53 1.84 (0.77–4.42) 2.30 (1.07–4.91)*
5 Propensity: ↑INP↓DT/MT 139 30 0.69 (0.21–2.26) 0.72 (0.29–1.79)
Conditional logistic regression 433 415 1.32 (0.91–1.93) 1.11 (0.81–1.51)
Residential (RES) versus Detox/Methadone (DT/MT)
1 Propensity: ↓RES↑DT/MT NRES=8 NDT/MT=167 1.34 (0.25–7.19) 0.37 (0.07–1.93)
2 59 115 0.82 (0.30–2.23) 0.63 (0.30–1.35)
3 107 68 0.49 (0.21–1.14) 1.01(0.50–2.03)
4 137 38 0.94 (0.32–2.71) 0.69 (0.28–1.72)
5 Propensity: ↑RES↓DT/MT 146 27 1.63 (0.52–5.06) 1.24 (0.49–3.11)
Conditional logistic regression 457 415 0.98 (0.65–1.48) 0.74 (0.53–1.03)
Inpatient (INP) versus Residential (RES)
1 Propensity: ↓INP↑RES NINP=26 NRES=152 1.68 (0.68–4.16) 1.80 (0.73–4.49)
2 54 124 1.09 (0.49–2.44) 1.49 (0.75–2.96)
3 88 90 0.77 (0.33–1.84) 1.62 (0.84–3.15)
4 111 67 1.85 (0.74–4.59) 1.01(0.52–2.00)
5 Propensity: ↑INP↓RES 154 24 4.57 (0.84–24.88) 2.86 (0.85–9.55)
Conditional logistic regression 433 457 1.36 (0.94–1.97) 1.59 (1.17–2.17)**

Note: Analyses within each propensity quartile were weighted by the probability weights provided by SROS.

a

Numbers for some modalities vary across comparisons because of missing data in the independent variables used to derive propensity scores for those comparisons.

*

P<.05

**

P<.01

***

P<.001

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure