Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 22

Cited In for PubMed (Select 14531316)

1.
2.
3.

Outcomes in a Sample of Opiod-Dependent Clients Treated Under California's Proposition 36.

Chun J, Guydish JR, Sorensen JL, Haug NA, Andrews S, Nelson L.

J Drug Issues. 2007 Jul 1;37(3):699-715.

4.

Evidence for Connections Between Prosecutor-Reported Marijuana Case Dispositions and Community Youth Marijuana-Related Attitudes and Behaviors.

Terry-McElrath YM, McBride DC, Chriqui JF, O'Malley PM, Vanderwaal CJ, Chaloupka FJ, Johnston LD.

Crime Delinq. 2009 Oct;55(4):600-626.

5.

Drug-abusing offenders with comorbid mental disorders: problem severity, treatment participation, and recidivism.

Jaffe A, Du J, Huang D, Hser YI.

J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012 Sep;43(2):244-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2011.12.002. Epub 2012 Feb 2.

6.

Differential outcomes of court-supervised substance abuse treatment among California parolees and probationers.

Evans E, Jaffe A, Urada D, Anglin MD.

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2012 Jun;56(4):539-56. doi: 10.1177/0306624X11404827. Epub 2011 Apr 24.

7.
8.

A Randomized Trial of Probation Case Management for Drug-Involved Women Offenders.

Guydish J, Chan M, Bostrom A, Jessup M, Davis T, Marsh C.

Crime Delinq. 2011 Mar;57(2):167-198.

9.

American indians/alaska natives and substance abuse treatment outcomes: positive signs and continuing challenges.

Dickerson DL, Spear S, Marinelli-Casey P, Rawson R, Li L, Hser YI.

J Addict Dis. 2011 Jan;30(1):63-74. doi: 10.1080/10550887.2010.531665.

10.

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.

11.

Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36.

Evans E, Anglin MD, Urada D, Yang J.

Eval Program Plann. 2011 May;34(2):124-34. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.09.001. Epub 2010 Sep 29.

12.
13.
14.

Employment services utilization and outcomes among substance abusing offenders participating in California's proposition 36 drug treatment initiative.

Evans E, Hser YI, Huang D.

J Behav Health Serv Res. 2010 Oct;37(4):461-76. doi: 10.1007/s11414-009-9185-z. Epub 2009 Aug 18.

15.

Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment.

Evans E, Li L, Hser YI.

Eval Program Plann. 2009 Aug;32(3):204-12. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.12.003. Epub 2008 Dec 11.

16.

Impact of court-mandated substance abuse treatment on clinical decision making.

Niv N, Hamilton A, Hser YI.

J Behav Health Serv Res. 2009 Oct;36(4):505-16. doi: 10.1007/s11414-008-9129-z. Epub 2008 Jul 10.

17.

Influence of perceived coercion and motivation on treatment completion and re-arrest among substance-abusing offenders.

Prendergast M, Greenwell L, Farabee D, Hser YI.

J Behav Health Serv Res. 2009 Apr;36(2):159-76. doi: 10.1007/s11414-008-9117-3. Epub 2008 May 31.

18.

Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders.

Evans E, Li L, Hser YI.

J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008 Dec;35(4):410-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.03.003. Epub 2008 Jun 2.

20.

Ethnic differences in utilization of drug treatment services and outcomes among Proposition 36 offenders in California.

Fosados R, Evans E, Hser YI.

J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007 Dec;33(4):391-9. Epub 2007 May 17.

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk