Family Research Study at Eagleville Hospital and Rehabilitation Center (original) (raw)

Program is described, presenting an overview of the Family Research Study and the problem areas inherent in coordinating research with a new treatment program; an analysis of the sample of drug abusers, their families, and their course in family treatment is discussed. The Community School Program is included as a demonstration of the potential for effective primary prevention. Areas of promise for future development are reviewed as they provide direction for further clinical and research work with the family and drug abuse. The family study program was created as one part of the Combined Treatment Project in which the entire inpatient unit of Eagleville was involved. Some brief historical background may be helpful for understanding the development of these studies. Eagleville Hospital and Rehabilitation Center is a private facility located near Norristown, Pennsylvania, approximately 30 minutes northwest of Philadelphia. As an abstinent, therapeutic community for the treatment of alcoholism and drug dependence, the program began by admitting alcoholics in July, 1966, and then included individuals with drug problems in 1968 with no exclusion by sex or race. The residents were treated in mixed substance-abuse groups until the introduction of this Combined Treatment Project in the fall of 1973 and its actual initiation in June, 1974. The Project was designed to test a major treatment philosophy of Eagleville: that treatment in a mixed addiction unit is more effective than treatment in units composed entirely of drug addicts or alcoholics. A second hypothesis stated that the likelihood of a favorable outcome would be increased for patients when members of their families were also engaged in treatment. Two forms of family treatment were being tested: the first, family therapy in which the entire family, including the primary patient, was seen together, and the second, the treatment of members of the primary patient's immediate family in separate, outpatient relatives' groups; there was also a control group made up of families not involved in treatment. Outcome will be evaluated by periodic follow-up over a span of two years after admission to treatment and by the associated cost-effectiveness study. A subsidiary hypothesis stated that other members of the primary patient's family who abused either drugs or alcohol would also benefit from the family treatment, as measured by a reduction in their own substance abuse or by their entering treatment for their own addictive problems. While no prediction was made regarding the relative effectiveness of the two forms of family treatment, they will be compared as to both outcome and cost-effectiveness. The clients were treated in four units with separate staff and living quarters. During the four phases of the study (each approximately 12 weeks in duration), each unit staff was responsible for treating two mixed groups, one alcoholic, and one drug-dependent group. The appropriate shift in admissions to the four units occurred during a transitional period of approximately four to six weeks between phases until the proper composition of clients in each unit was established. At the time of the Symposium, we had just entered the third phase of the study. Our results and observations were more complete, therefore, on Phase I, but we also included the available data for the Family Study from Phase II. A brief description of the characteristics of the men and women coming to Eagleville will give a picture of our population. These are summarized in Table I.