Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 91

1.

The San Francisco centralized intake unit: a description of participants and service episodes.

Woods WJ, Klingemann SD, Guydish JR.

J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002 Jan-Mar;34(1):17-24.

PMID:
12003109
2.

Impact of centralized intake on drug and alcohol treatment placement decisions.

Scott CK, Foss MA.

J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002 Jan-Mar;34(1):7-15.

PMID:
12003116
3.

Does centralized intake improve drug abuse treatment outcomes?

Guydish J, Woods WJ, Davis T, Bostrom A, Frazier Y.

J Subst Abuse Treat. 2001 Jun;20(4):265-73; discussion 275-6.

PMID:
11672641
4.

Women are less likely to be admitted to substance abuse treatment within 30 days of assessment.

Arfken CL, Borisova N, Klein C, di Menza S, Schuster CR.

J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002 Jan-Mar;34(1):33-8.

PMID:
12003111
5.

Effects of treatment history and centralized intake on drug treatment outcomes.

Sears C, Davis T, Guydish J.

J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002 Jan-Mar;34(1):87-95.

PMID:
12003118
7.

Impact of centralized intake on case management services.

Scott CK, Sherman RE, Foss MA, Godley M, Hristova L.

J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002 Jan-Mar;34(1):51-7.

PMID:
12003113
8.

Drug abuse treatment on demand in San Francisco: preliminary findings.

Guydish J, Moore L, Gleghorn A, Davis T, Sears C, Harcourt J.

J Psychoactive Drugs. 2000 Oct-Dec;32(4):363-70.

PMID:
11210197
9.

Organizational and client determinants of cost in outpatient substance abuse treatment.

Beaston-Blaakman A, Shepard D, Horgan C, Ritter G.

J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2007 Mar;10(1):3-13.

PMID:
17417043
10.

Access to drug abuse treatment under Treatment on Demand policy in San Francisco.

Sorensen JL, Guydish J, Zilavy P, Davis TB, Gleghorn A, Jacoby M, Sears C.

Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2007;33(2):227-36.

11.

Evaluation of full vs. partial continuum of care in the treatment of publicly funded substance abusers in Washington State.

McKay JR, Donovan DM, McLellan T, Krupski A, Hansten M, Stark KD, Geary K, Cecere J.

Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2002;28(2):307-38.

PMID:
12014818
12.

Varieties of centralized intake: the Portland Target Cities Project experience.

Barron N, McFarland BH, McCamant L.

J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002 Jan-Mar;34(1):75-86.

PMID:
12003117
13.

Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: treatment capacity and displacement.

Hser YI, Teruya C, Brown AH, Huang D, Evans E, Anglin MD.

Am J Public Health. 2007 Jan;97(1):104-9. Epub 2006 Nov 30.

14.
15.
16.

Interaction effects of treatment setting and client characteristics on retention and completion.

Klein C, di Menza S, Arfken C, Schuster CR.

J Psychoactive Drugs. 2002 Jan-Mar;34(1):39-50.

PMID:
12003112
17.

Impact of brief interventions and brief treatment on admissions to chemical dependency treatment.

Krupski A, Sears JM, Joesch JM, Estee S, He L, Dunn C, Huber A, Roy-Byrne P, Ries R.

Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Jul 1;110(1-2):126-36. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.02.018. Epub 2010 Mar 26.

PMID:
20347234
18.

Unscheduled admissions and AMA discharges from a substance abuse unit.

Berg BJ, Dhopesh V.

Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 1996 Nov;22(4):589-93.

PMID:
8911595
19.

Workforce professionalism in drug treatment services: impact of California's Proposition 36.

Wu F, Hser YI.

J Subst Abuse Treat. 2011 Jan;40(1):44-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2010.08.006. Epub 2010 Oct 30.

20.

Factors associated with the receipt of treatment following detoxification.

Mark TL, Dilonardo JD, Chalk M, Coffey R.

J Subst Abuse Treat. 2003 Jun;24(4):299-304.

PMID:
12867203
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk