What factors support further treatment?
Important note on interpretation
A national model is not presented as it was not statistically valid, indicating that variations exist in the operational use of ‘Assessment only’, likely reflecting differences in service structures and state and territory programs. Separate models were fitted for each state and territory. Any comparisons between states and territories should be interpreted with caution.
-
Receiving further treatment after an assessment depends on both individual factors and state and territory treatment practices.
The likelihood of receiving further treatment within one year (365 days) after an ‘Assessment only’ episode varied across each state and territory, however, there were some common themes. For most states:
- Females were more likely to receive a further treatment episode compared with males.
- Clients who were younger or older, were less likely to receive further treatment compared with clients aged 30–39.
- Clients referred into treatment through health services, corrections, and diversion programs were less likely to receive further treatment compared with those referred into treatment by themselves or family.
- Clients who received their ‘Assessment only’ treatment episode in a residential setting were more likely to receive further treatment compared with those in non-residential treatment settings.
- If an ‘Assessment only’ treatment episode ended as unplanned, they were less likely to receive further treatment compared with a client whose ‘Assessment only’ ended as expected or planned.
- If an ‘Assessment only’ treatment episode ended due to the client being referred to another service or changed their treatment mode, they were more likely to receive further treatment compared with clients whose ‘Assessment only’ ended as expected or planned.
- If a client had received treatment prior to their first ‘Assessment only’ episode during the study period they were more likely to receive further treatment compared with clients who had not (Table AO12; Figure 4).
Figure 4: The estimated relative risks of receiving further AOD treatment following an ‘Assessment only’ episode, by state and territory
Forest plot showing the estimated relative risk of receiving further treatment filtered by stratified state and territory models.
Figure 4 describes the estimated association between a set of client and treatment episode characteristics and the likelihood of receiving a subsequent treatment episode within one year (365 days) following an ‘Assessment only’ episode.
These associations are presented as relative risks, which are the ratios of the probability of an event occurring in one group versus that of a reference group. In this study, the relative risk measures the relative difference in the likelihood of receiving subsequent treatment among groups with different client or treatment episode characteristics. A value of 1.00 indicates no difference between the two groups; values greater than 1.00 indicate increased likelihood compared to the reference group, and values less than 1.00 indicate decreased likelihood.
The 95% confidence intervals are also presented to indicate the statistical precision and significance of the estimation. The result is interpreted as having a statistically significant impact if the interval does not cross the value of 1.
How did these factors vary by state and territory?
Broadly, factors that were associated with either accessing further treatment or not accessing further treatment were consistent. However, as each state and territory showed distinct pathways, shaped by local programs, referral arrangements, and service models, separate models had to be fitted for each state and territory. Any comparisons between states and territories should be interpreted with caution. See Figure 4 to explore the estimated relative risks of ‘Assessment only’ clients receiving further treatment by state and territories.
- Older clients, aged 60+, were 7.6% less likely to receive further treatment compared with clients aged 30–39 at the start of their ‘Assessment only’ episode.
- Clients located in Inner regional areas were 4.6% more likely to receive a further treatment compared with clients in Major cities. While clients located in Outer regional (6.7%) and Remote and very remote areas (16%) were less likely to receive a subsequent treatment episode compared to clients located in Major cities.
- When other principal drugs of concern were compared to alcohol, clients were less likely to receive further treatment.
- Clients whose ‘Assessment only’ episode ended due to an unplanned completion were less likely to receive further treatment compared with clients with an expected or planned completion (30%) (Table AO12; Figure 4).
- Younger (10–19, 16% and 20–29, 4.9%) and older clients (60+, 7.8%) were less likely to receive further treatment compared with clients aged 30–39 at the start of their ‘Assessment only’ episode.
- Clients receiving treatment in either a residential setting (38%), or a home or outreach setting (7.5%) were less likely to receive further treatment compared with a non-residential setting.
- Clients whose ‘Assessment only’ episode ended due to an unplanned completion (57%) or referred to another service or changed their treatment mode (7.1%) were less likely to receive further treatment compared with an expected or planned completion (Table AO12; Figure 4).
- Younger (10–19, 10.5%) and older clients (60+, 35%) were less likely to receive further treatment compared with clients aged 30–39 at the start of their ‘Assessment only’ episode.
- Clients referred into treatment by a diversion program were 29% more likely to receive further treatment compared with referrals from self or family.
- Clients whose principal drug of concern was heroin were 14% more likely to receive further treatment compared with clients with alcohol as a principal drug of concern (Table AO12; Figure 4).
- Clients aged 10–19 were 34% less likely to receive further treatment compared with clients aged 30–39 at the start of their ‘Assessment only’ episode.
- Clients located in Inner regional were 29% less likely to receive further treatment compared with those in Major cities (Table AO12; Figure 4).
- Younger (10–19, 38%) and older clients (60+, 26%) were less likely to receive further treatment compared with clients aged 30–39 at the start of their ‘Assessment only’ episode.
- Clients located in Inner regional (14%) and Outer regional (13%) were more likely to receive further treatment compared with those in Major cities (Table AO12; Figure 4).
- Older clients (60+, 42%) were less likely to receive further treatment compared with clients age 30–39 at the start of their ‘Assessment only’ episode.
- Clients located in and Outer regional were 14% less likely to receive further treatment compared with those in Inner regional.
- Clients whose ‘Assessment only’ episode ended due to being referred to another service or changed their treatment mode were 91% more likely to receive further treatment compared with an expected or planned completion (Table AO12; Figure 4).
- Clients who received treatment in an outreach or home setting were 14% more likely to receive further treatment compared with those in a non-residential setting.
- Clients who had a principal drug of concern of methamphetamine (16%) or heroin (17%) were more likely to receive a subsequent treatment compared with clients with a principal drug of concern of alcohol (Table AO12; Figure 4).
- Older clients (60+) were 14% less likely to receive further treatment compared with clients aged 30–39 at the start of their ‘Assessment only’ episode.
- Clients located in and Remote areas were 7.1% more likely to receive further treatment compared with those in Outer regional areas (Table AO12; Figure 4).