Background/Objectives: This scoping review aims to identify the diverse existing tools applicable for the measurement of SUD outcomes, examining and comparing their item characteristics, benefits, limitations, cost effectiveness, and overall utility. This study provides recommendations on the next steps toward the design and
[...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: This scoping review aims to identify the diverse existing tools applicable for the measurement of SUD outcomes, examining and comparing their item characteristics, benefits, limitations, cost effectiveness, and overall utility. This study provides recommendations on the next steps toward the design and dissemination of a unified version of a standard SUD outcome measurement tool.
Methods: Using PRISMA-ScR guidelines, the databases PubMed and Embase, as well as the grey literature, were searched for existing SUD outcome measurement tools. Additionally, references and information on tools were found via the Addictions Drug and Alcohol Institute Library at the University of Washington. Tools were examined based on their characteristics, benefits, limitations, and overall utility.
Results: Thirteen tools met the analysis requirements and were analyzed, revealing great variance. The domains covered by each tool is categorized for comparison among other tools, showing strong focus over some domains more than others. Additionally, great variance in characteristics such as the number of questions, question structure, time required for completion, and scoring were seen. Sources for each of these tools’ development were seen to reveal the unique origination of each, as well as their intended utility.
Conclusions: Our analysis highlights the importance of considering certain characteristics when selecting measurement instruments, emphasizing the need for clear and concise questions to enhance levels of adherence and interpretation. The current lack of standardization among SUD measurement tools in assessing new and existing SUD treatment modalities has hindered progress in the field, compromising the quality of care delivered.
Full article