Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Adm Policy Ment Health. 2014 Nov;41(6):737–749. doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0515-3

Table 4. Implementation of MAT (N = 122).

Variable Implementation of MAT

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3



B SE B SE B SE
Organization
 State licensure 1.25 0.30 1.27 0.32 1.53 0.50
 TJC accreditation 1.50 0.61 1.48 0.54 1.58 0.53
 Public funding 0.60 0.20 0.56 0.19 0.62 0.20
 Parent organization 1.57 0.40 1.34 0.34 1.21 0.33
 Medicaid 1.49 0.33 1.54 0.34 1.46 0.30
 Private insurance 1.41 0.38 1.54* 0.40 1.60* 0.38
 Private insurance × EBP openness 0.22** 0.12
 Parent organization × EBP openness 3.22* 1.71
Director and staff
 Director leadership 0.97 0.13 0.96 0.14
 Staff resources for change 1.19 0.26 1.28 0.27
 Staff education 1.59 0.53 1.69 0.56
Clinical supervisor
 Field tenure 1.02 0.02
 Education 1.13 0.08
Attitudes toward EBP
 Openness 1.31* 0.18
 Regulation 0.84 0.11
 Appeal 1.13 0.17
 Divergence 1.13 0.21
Attributes for change 0.95 0.28
Constant 3.49** 2.11 1.91 1.56 0.25 0.37
Adjusted R2 0.13 0.16 0.32

Note Multivariate regression parameter estimates with robust standard errors from two-tailed tests. MAT medication-assisted treatment, TJC the joint commission

p < 0.10,

*

p < 0.05,

**

p < 0.01