Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Die häufigsten Fragen
Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS). Die DSHS ist das nationale Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland. Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik liefert Informationen zur Arbeit in den ambulanten und stationären Suchthilfeeinrichtungen. Einleitung. Dr. Tim Pfeiffer-Gerschel. PD Dr. Larissa Schwarzkopf. Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS) ist ein bundesweites. Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS) ist ein nationales Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland. Pfeiffer-Gerschel, T. et al. Herausgeber: DBDD, München. Suchthilfe in Deutschland Jahresbericht der Deutschen Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS).
Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik liefert Informationen zur Arbeit in den ambulanten und stationären Suchthilfeeinrichtungen. Datenquelle: Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik für ambulante Einrichtungen. Kontakt: Ansprechpartner(in): Frau Dr. Dipl.-Psych. Barbara Braun. Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS) ist ein nationales Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland.
Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik - RessortforschungJahr: Autoren: Hibell, B. Damit sollen die Lebensrealität der Hilfesuchenden und die organisatorischen Rahmenbedingungen der Suchthilfe noch besser abgebildet werden. Neue Entwicklungen und Trends. Aktuelle Veränderungen können so besser beobachtet werden, da Langzeitbetreuungen nicht berücksichtigt sind. Jahr: Autoren: Dauber, H. Ergänzend wird die Stichprobe mit der ersten Betreuungsepisode in der jeweiligen Einrichtung berücksichtigt. , München. An alle Einrichtungen im Bereich der Suchtkrankenhilfe. Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik - Standardjahresauswertung Suchthilfestatistik BW – Landesstelle für Suchtfragen Da die Daten der Deutschen Suchthilfestatistik schon seit vielen Jahren erhoben werden, können. Die DSHS ist ein nationales Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland. Als Dokumentationssystem hat die Deutsche. Datenquelle: Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik für ambulante Einrichtungen. Kontakt: Ansprechpartner(in): Frau Dr. Dipl.-Psych. Barbara Braun. Die Daten der bundesweiten Deutschen Suchthilfestatistik. (DSHS) werden j hrlich von ambulanten und station ren. Einrichtungen der Suchtkrankenhilfe. Kurzbericht Epidemiologischer Suchtsurvey Vor diesem Hintergrund ist perspektivisch der Wechsel von einer segmentbezogenen Beteiligungsquote Anteil ambulante bzw. Hierfür verlassen die Daten die Einrichtungen in aggregierter Form. Jahr: Autoren: Brand, H. Jahr: Autoren: Hibell, B. Die DSHS stellt eines der umfassendsten und differenziertesten Systeme zur Datenerhebung im suchtbezogenen Beratungs- und Behandlungskontext auf europäischer Ebene dar. Substance use among students in 36 European article source. Jahr: Autoren: Delle, S. Diese Kurzberichte basieren meist auf Sonderläufen. Europäischer Drogenbericht Hierfür verlassen die Daten die Einrichtungen in aggregierter Form. Grundsätzlich lassen sich auch mehrere Filter kombinieren z. Dies trifft auf Leistungen zu, auf die ein gesetzlich begründeter Anspruch besteht bspw. Suchtkrankenhilfe in Deutschland Damit sollen die Lebensrealität der Hilfesuchenden go here die organisatorischen Rahmenbedingungen der Suchthilfe noch besser abgebildet werden. Jahr: Autoren: Hibell, B. Tabelle 1: Zeitlicher Ablauf von der Datensammlung bis zur Tabellenbanderstellung. Jahr: Autoren: Karachaliou, K. Das IFT ist als selbstständiges, gemeinnütziges Forschungsinstitut auf dem Gebiet der Abhängigkeitserkrankungen tätig und bearbeitet grundlagen- und anwendungsbezogene Fragestellungen zu Click here, Epidemiologie, Prävention, Therapie und Versorgungsforschung. Für continue reading Spezialauswertungen existieren zudem regionale Tabellenbände. Der Missingwert für die einzelnen Tabellen bewegt sich im Mittel um die fünf Prozent. Jahr: Autoren: Pfeiffer-Gerschel, T.
Deutsche SuchthilfestatistikEuropäischer Drogenbericht Schätzung der Anzahl der Personen mit problematischemoder pathologischemGlücksspielverhaltenin Bayern. Jahr: Autoren: Karachaliou, K. Programm- oder Exportfehler einzelner Softwaresysteme zu identifizieren. Die Check this out stellt eines der umfassendsten und differenziertesten Systeme zur Datenerhebung im suchtbezogenen Beratungs- und Behandlungskontext auf europäischer Ebene dar. Die Datenerhebung innerhalb der Einrichtungen erfolgt dabei in der Regel elektronisch unter Einsatz verschiedener Softwaresysteme. Perkonigg, A. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden. For descriptive purposes, continuous variables are reported as means with standard deviations or as medians 10 th and 90 th percentile in the case of skewed distributions. Forthe only available data are inpatient data from the German statutory pension insurance scheme. Subsequently we will introduce commonly encountered comorbidities. View author publications. By comparison, the following Beste Spielothek in Glinde finden are reported for the general population: All patient-related check this out were de-identified.
Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Video
Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Video
The facility type was used as control variable. To estimate the number of individuals addicted to opioids, the estimated percentage of individuals not undergoing substitution treatment and with no case documentation NST was added to the number of individuals not undergoing substitution treatment estimated on the basis of the DSHS data AC.
These steps were taken for men and for women. These figures were used to calculate a percentage for each federal state on the basis of the reported total number.
A total of 0. The number of individuals addicted to opioids and not undergoing substitution treatment was obtained from the DSHS data in line with the following characteristics:.
A total of individuals addicted to opioids were recorded in routine documentation at the 5 locations. It was estimated that 9.
Estimated rates for federal states range from 0. The estimated number of individuals addicted to opioids in Germany in is based on the following:.
There are no current figures for Germany or its federal states except for this estimate and one study in Berlin Comparisons with earlier estimates of the numbers of individuals addicted to opioids in Berlin are limited by the fact that this evaluation uses only national data, not regional data.
If it were, the number of individuals addicted to opioids who did not undergo substitution treatment and were not recorded would be higher than estimated here in federal city states and those federal states with large cities and a large drug scene.
In contrast, the estimates for other federal states would be slightly overestimated. However, the regional distribution of individuals addicted to opioids who do not undergo substitution treatment and are not registered may also be subject to effects other than those assumed here.
Our estimates for federal states are therefore merely approximate. In our study, the number of individuals addicted to opioids currently undergoing substitution treatment was Our estimate has a number of limitations.
Finally, it must be pointed out that individuals addicted to opioids who were incarcerated, in facilities for integration into society, or in acute care could not be included in the estimate, even though it can be assumed that there is great overlap with the data sources used.
Our estimate should therefore be treated as conservative. This estimate assumes that almost everyone addicted to opioids is in some kind of contact with the addiction care system.
However, the existence of a population of opioid users who could potentially be diagnosed with addiction and who cannot be counted among harm reduction service users cannot be ruled out.
These might include, for example, individuals who are integrated into society, who have the financial means to procure opioids, and who use opioids with no impact on society or damage to their health.
The overall scale of heroin and other opioid use has fallen in recent years, and opioid use seems to be less attractive to young people than stimulant use, for example This can be explained by stagnation of the prevalence of opioid addiction and a decline in its incidence.
At the same time, there is evidence in the literature of a decline in new cases of opioid-related disorders in Europe 27 — Consequently, prevalence is falling only in the long term, as substitution treatment has been rolled out comprehensively, leading to better survival and the ageing of the population of users as a whole.
However, the dramatic increase in opioid-related mortality observed in the USA in the last two decades in the context of liberal prescription of opioid-containing analgesics to patients with chronic, non-cancer-related pain 30 suggests that more attention must be paid to preventing possible iatrogenic opioid addiction disorders using appropriate countermeasures.
Estimating the number of individuals who have attended low-threshold facilities would have been impossible without the help of addiction care facility staff.
We would like to thank the following facilities and their employees for their support: Drob Inn St. Conflict of interest statement PD Dr.
Verthein has received reimbursement of conference fees and travel costs and lecture fees from Mundipharma GmbH.
Corresponding author: Prof. For eReferences please refer to: www. DOI: Enlarge All figures. Estimated numbers of individuals addicted to opioids by status substitution treatment, no substitution treatment, and no substitution treatment or case documentation.
Estimated total number of individuals addicted to opioids, population in , and rate of opioid addiction per inhabitants by federal state.
Lancet ; —74 CrossRef. Schäfer M: Opioide. Lancet ; —84 CrossRef. Drug Alcohol Depend ; —9 CrossRef. Groenemeyer A: Drogen, Drogenkonsum und Drogenabhängigkeit.
In: Albrecht G, Groenemeyer A eds. Wiesbaden: Springer ; —93 CrossRef. Sucht ; 43 Sonderheft 2 : S79—S Drogenabhängigen in Deutschland Anonymes Monitoring in den Praxen niedergelassener Ärzte.
München: Profil Bundesopiumstelle: Bericht zum Substitutionsregister Jahresbericht zur aktuellen Situation der Suchthilfe in Berlin in Vorbereitung.
Sucht ; —78 CrossRef. Statistisches Bundesamt Destatis : Bevölkerungsstand. Bevölkerung nach Altersgruppen, Familienstand und Religionszugehörigkeit.
There was also no difference between the study groups concerning the duration of employment. For those who had a job on the primary labour market, the mean number of months in employment in the CMRE group was 6.
There were no significant differences between groups in linkage with other services immediately after discharge, and in use of follow-up services at the months follow-up please see Additional file 1 : Figure S1 and Additional file 2 : Figure S2.
This study found that the CMRE was not superior compared to standard care SC in its effect on return to work rates of patients with substance use disorders within a 2-years-period after inpatient rehabilitation.
Further, CMRE did not show superior effects on abstinence, satisfaction with life, precarious housing situation, precarious financial situation, and duration of employment.
There was a significantly higher proportion in the CMRE group, however, which immediately after discharge linked with services of the Federal Employment Agency or Job Centres when compared to the SC group.
There were, however, no significant differences between groups in linkage with other services immediately after discharge, and in use of follow-up services at the months follow-up.
Thus, our results did not confirm the hypothesis that a CMRE approach might improve the return to work of persons with substance use disorders and could diminish their risk of drug use relapse.
Evaluating CMRE in a multi-site quasi-randomised trial presents several challenges, and this trial had its particular strengths and weaknesses.
Due to successful recruitment, implementation of a randomisation procedure resulting in no group differences at baseline assessment, and follow-up rates comparing favourably to those in similar studies in Germany [ 3 , 13 ], the trial significantly increased the existing evidence base especially in the field of employment-focused outcomes of substance use rehabilitation [ 6 ].
The trial made use of a methodological level up to the one more and more common in mental health services research [ 14 ], and increased this level, especially when compared to the pilot study in which the intervention was modelled and tested [ 10 ].
Further, the trial used standardised assessment instruments for most outcome domains, demonstrated the feasibility of implementing a manual-based case management intervention providing a close linking between inpatient substance rehabilitation and post-treatment Employment Agencies, and showed that CMRE had an effect on such linkage.
Thus, our findings of improved co-operation between rehabilitation services and Employment Agencies confirmed results reported by a previous study [ 15 ] on improved linkage with substance abuse treatment as a consequence of case management work.
At the post-intervention assessment after months, the drop-out rate in the control group was higher than in the intervention group.
These results indicate a potential effect of the CMRE on retention in the study program. This corresponds with findings of a meta-analysis indicating moderate improvements in utilization of substance abuse treatment and important auxiliary services, including retention in substance abuse and auxiliary services [ 6 ].
This suggests an only temporary effect of CMRE on retention in the study program. The CM approach used in our study might be classified as generalist CM, which is the most frequent approach assessed in trials on patients with substance use disorders [ 5 , 6 ].
In contrast to factors of success described in the literature when implementing such interventions [ 16 ], our approach was not provided by a CM team in each of the participating departments, and did not include the provision of direct services.
This could be seen as a potential to optimise our approach when modifying CMRE in the future. Further issues to be improved might be to reduce the high caseload of the case managers in our study, and to increase the rate of face-to-face-contacts above the level achieved in our study, although our approach already resulted in a high rate and time of contacts per participant.
Apart from such practical issues of CMRE provision, we could speculate on some other factors explaining our results that CMRE had no effect on return-to-work rates within a 2-years-follow-up period.
Firstly, we would like to point out that our findings are in line with results reported in a most recent meta-analysis on the efficacy of case management, which reported only weak effects on social inclusion [ 6 ].
Secondly, contextual factors like the recently significantly decreased unemployment rate in Eastern Germany from This might be due to the already optimised SC in Central Germany.
This procedure refers to already established special contracts with Employment Agencies aiming to re-integrate patients from substance use rehabilitation into competitive employment, and therefore might have also decreased the potential effects of the CMRE.
The impact of such factors is well established in studies identifying predictors of employment [ 8 ], and assessing vocational re-integration after medical rehabilitation of patients [ 18 ].
Thirdly, there is no direct influence of the CMRE on the primary outcome of our trial; this influence is mediated via the improved linkage of the patients to the Employment Agencies.
Fourthly, in the light of the well-known association of re-integration to competitive work and the decrease of substance consumption and relapse rates, effects of CMRE on abstinence should not be expected if vocational re-integration is not improved.
Although studies showed a high congruence between self-reports and drug detection tests in urine [ 19 , 20 ], we cannot exclude the option that our results are biased in this respect by socially desired response behaviour.
Fifthly, we can only speculate that results established in the post-interventional period of our study are biased by the higher drop-out rate in the SC group compared to the CMRE group.
Implications of our trial for further research would be to improve study designs in this field up to the more robust methodological level of simple randomisation, to optimise practical aspects of CMRE provision, and to develop a more profound understanding of factors potentially mediating the effects of CMRE.
We thank the participating patients and their next-of-kin. Funders were not involved in data collection, access, analysis, interpretation and writing of the report.
SuS performed the statistical analyses. SuS and TK wrote the drafts. SuS corresponded with the study authors.
All authors revised the drafts and approved the final manuscript. Written informed consent was obtained from all eligible patients prior to their inclusion in the study.
All patient-related data were de-identified. Additional file 1: Figure S1. JPG kb. Thomas W. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.
BMC Psychiatry. Published online Aug 5. Kallert 5. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer.
Corresponding author. Received Feb 12; Accepted Aug 2. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Associated Data Data Availability Statement The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional file.
Abstract Background Substance use disorders are associated with unemployment. Results One hundred sixty patients were allocated into the CMRE group and patients into the control group.
Conclusions Compared to SC, the additional specific CMRE intervention did not result in superior effects on return to work rates, abstinence, satisfaction with life, and housing and precarious financial situation.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article doi Background Problematic substance use is associated with unemployment, since substance use disorders may elicit absence from work and unemployment but, in reverse, unemployment may lead to substance use disorders [ 1 ].
Methods Study period, sites, and inclusion criteria The trial was conducted from September to September Randomisation procedure The trial used a quasi-randomised approach of allocating patients to the two study groups.
Intervention: employment-focused case management The study compared a generalist case management approach focused on return to competitive employment CMRE - Case Management to improve Return to Employment to standard care SC.
Methodological approach for analysis Binary variables are reported using absolute and relative frequencies. Open in a separate window.
Table 1 Comparison of baseline characteristics. Table 2 Impact of intervention on employment. Discussion This study found that the CMRE was not superior compared to standard care SC in its effect on return to work rates of patients with substance use disorders within a 2-years-period after inpatient rehabilitation.
Conclusions Implications of our trial for further research would be to improve study designs in this field up to the more robust methodological level of simple randomisation, to optimise practical aspects of CMRE provision, and to develop a more profound understanding of factors potentially mediating the effects of CMRE.
Acknowledgements We thank the participating patients and their next-of-kin. Availability of data and materials The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional file.
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Consent for publication Not applicable. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and GCP-guidelines.
Additional files Additional file 1: Figure S1. References 1. Henkel D. Unemployment and substance use: a review of the literature — Curr Drug Abuse Rev.
Effektivität der stationären abstinenzorientierten Drogenrehabilitation - FVS-Katamnese des Entlassjahrgangs von Fachkliniken für Drogenrehabilitation.
Sucht Aktuell. Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Veränderung des Erwerbsstatus von zu Beginn der stationären Rehabilitation erwerbslosen Suchtrehabilitanden - differenziert nach Geschlecht [Tabellenbände] Effectiveness of different models of case management for substance-abusing populations.
J Psychoactive Drugs. The efficacy of case management with persons who have substance abuse problems: a three-level meta-analysis of outcomes.
J Consult Clin Psychol. Enhancing substance abuse treatment with case management. Its impact on employment.
J Subst Abuse Treat. An integrated drug counseling and employment intervention for methadone clients. A randomized trial of probation case management for drug-involved women offenders.
Crime Delinq. Stopp J. Treatment demand indicator TDI - Standard protocol 3. Deutscher Kerndatensatz zur Dokumentation im Bereich der Suchtkrankenhilfe.
Losses to follow-up in longitudinal psychiatric research. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. Kallert TW. Is mental health services research in need of randomised controlled trials?
Psychiatr Prax. Improving linkage with substance abuse treatment using brief case management and motivational interviewing. Drug Alcohol Depend.
The development and implementation of case management for substance use disorders in North America and Europe. Psychiatr Serv.
Bundesamt S.SuS performed the statistical analyses. Accessed: 09 Nov Bundeslagebild — Tabellenanhang, Bundeskriminalamt, Wiesbaden. In Bavaria, for example, 14 advice centers have gained the required recognition status. Am J Public Health. After recruitment, the intervention group received an in-depth assessment to identify any assistance commit Beste Spielothek in Almstorf finden sorry in work-related and social issues. For the number of patients treated by psychological psychotherapists in private practice, an more info is available only for Bavaria Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Suchtmedizin - Abstractband. MärzRobert Koch-Institut, Berlin. Alle personenbezogenen Rohdaten verbleiben zu jedem Zeitpunkt in den Einrichtungen. Delle, S. Jahr: Autoren: Grüne, B. Jahr: Autoren: Strupf, M. Tabelle 2 bietet eine Übersicht über die seit dem Datenjahr gültigen Standardläufe. Have Odin App remarkable Raiser, Dr.