Use of Integrated Dual Disorder Treatment Via Assertive Community Treatment Versus Clinical Case Management for Persons With Co-Occurring Disorders and Antisocial Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted secondary analyses of data from a randomized trial testing the effectiveness of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) in delivery of integrated dual disorder treatment (IDDT) to explore the impact of IDDT delivered through ACT teams compared with standard clinical case management for dually-disordered persons with and without antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). This analysis included 36 individuals with ASPD and 88 individuals without ASPD. Participants with ASPD assigned to ACT showed a significantly greater reduction in alcohol use and were less likely to go to jail than those in standard clinical case management, whereas participants without ASPD did not differ between the 2 case management approaches. There were no significant differences for other substance use or criminal justice outcomes. This study provides preliminary evidence that persons with co-occurring serious mental illness, substance use disorders, and ASPD may benefit from delivery of IDDT through ACT teams.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".