Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Ressortforschung

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).

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik

Die Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS) ist ein nationales Dokumentations- und Monitoringsystem im Bereich der Suchthilfe in Deutschland. Die Daten der bundesweiten Deutschen Suchthilfestatistik. (DSHS) werden j hrlich von ambulanten und station ren. Einrichtungen der Suchtkrankenhilfe. Pfeiffer-Gerschel, T. et al. Herausgeber: DBDD, München. Suchthilfe in Deutschland Jahresbericht der Deutschen Suchthilfestatistik (DSHS).

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik - Die häufigsten Fragen

Substanzkonsum in der jungen Ausgehszene. Dauber, H. Jahr: Autoren: Thaller, R. Jeder Dateneingang wird auf technische Vollständigkeit und Korrektheit geprüft, um mögliche Fehlerquellen bei der Dokumentation und Aggregation frühzeitig zu identifizieren. Jahr: Autoren: Hannemann, T. Diese sind bedingt durch die Zusammenfassung der einzelnen Fälle anonymisiert. After a https://millefeuilles.co/casino-game-online/beste-spielothek-in-kalkar-finden.php explanation of the legal framework in Germany, this article will set out diagnostic criteria and a brief screening instrument for routine clinical practice. Table 2 Impact of intervention on employment. Download citation. This team member provided a detailed oral and written explanation of the study. In Germany, more than one third of patients with alcohol abuse disorders and more than two-thirds of patients with drug abuse disorders treated in inpatient substance use rehabilitation departments are Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik [ 2article source ]. Estimating just click for source number of individuals who have attended low-threshold facilities would have been impossible without the help of addiction care facility staff. Diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders due to cannabis use Thomasius and Stolle, b. Küfner, H. This can be explained by stagnation of the prevalence of opioid addiction and a decline in its incidence. Übernommene Fälle aus dem Orthogonale Gruppe und Übernahmen in das Folgejahr bleiben unberücksichtigt. Der KDS 3. Suchthilfestatistik — Jahresbericht zur aktuellen Situation learn more here Suchthilfe in Berlin. So wird verhindert, dass bei nur zwei datenliefernden Einrichtungen Angaben identifizierbar werden. Jahr: Autoren: Lochbühler, K. Diese Kurzberichte basieren meist auf Sonderläufen. Hierbei werden besonders häufig Diagnosen z.

Reasons for the finding that such close linking does not have an impact on return to work rates are discussed in detail.

The trial was retrospectively registered. The online version of this article doi 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 ].

In Germany, more than one third of patients with alcohol abuse disorders and more than two-thirds of patients with drug abuse disorders treated in inpatient substance use rehabilitation departments are unemployed [ 2 , 3 ].

Furthermore, unemployment increases the risk of relapse after alcohol and drug addiction treatment [ 1 ]. Therefore, one of the major purposes of rehabilitation in this field is to re-integrate patients into competitive employment immediately after inpatient rehabilitation.

In order to realise this aim, which is important also from the population-based economic and public mental health standpoint of the financial carriers of these measures, standard care of substance use treatment in inpatient rehabilitation departments in Germany offers employment-focused counselling, assessment and training schemes.

However, the impact of these efforts on return-to-work rates seems to be limited. Out of all unemployed persons with substance use disorders in inpatient rehabilitation only 5.

Case management is a frequently used method to integrate health-related services across such interfaces [ 5 ].

Several trials conducted in the context of substance use rehabilitation have examined effects of case management on outcome domains like abstinence, linkage with and compliance with outpatient long-term treatment measures and auxiliary services.

A most recent meta-analysis on this issue [ 6 ] analysed data from 21 randomised trials, and found moderate improvements in linkage with and utilization of substance abuse treatment and important auxiliary services, but only weak effects on social inclusion, substance consumption and risk behaviour.

Prior to the beginning of our own trial, a systematic literature search revealed a lack of trials that examined the effects of case management for persons with substance use disorders on employment-focused outcomes.

We found two randomised trials assessing such outcome domains [ 7 , 8 ], searched the reference list of the above-mentioned meta-analysis [ 6 ], and thus could identify one additional trial [ 9 ].

None of the studies demonstrated significant overall improvements for the employment outcome measures used i. In summary, the findings of this small number of trials demonstrated the need to further explore the effects of case management on employment outcomes.

Against this background, our trial used a parallel controlled study design, and - in comparison to care as usual - aimed to assess the effects of employment-focused case management provided during and after inpatient substance use rehabilitation, focusing on return to work in a months follow-up period.

Encouraged by the results of a pilot study in which the intervention was modelled and pilot-tested without a parallel control group [ 10 ], and which showed positive effects of the intervention on employment status and abstinence, we hypothesised that a case management approach focused on employment issues might improve the return to work of persons with substance use disorders.

Further, we hypothesised that this intervention might diminish the risk of drug use relapse after discharge from rehabilitation.

The trial was conducted from September to September Two inpatient rehabilitation departments were located in rural areas with wide catchment areas Römhild, Elbingerode ; the other two were urban clinics with small catchment areas Magdeburg, Leipzig.

Due to evidence-based recommendations of the public finance provider, the therapeutic orientation of all the sites is more or less standardized, and comprises group-psychotherapy, one-to-one psychotherapeutic sessions, psycho-education concerning several addiction-related topics, occupational and vocational in-house training, physical therapy, social work, training of recreational activities, and involvement of relatives.

In addition, two clinics offer a service called adaption treatment within a week period right after inpatient rehabilitation: patients with a persisting need of vocational and social integration support and without a domicile are given the opportunity of assisted living and practical vocational training in companies on the first labour market and are supervised by trained social workers.

Premature discontinuation of the regular weeks rehabilitation period was not considered as an exclusion criterion.

The trial used a quasi-randomised approach of allocating patients to the two study groups. The period of one month was randomly selected for allocating patients recruited in this period to one of the study groups.

In the nine months recruitment period, group allocation alternated monthly at each study site. In two of the four sites, the recruiting team member was blinded towards the alternation procedure.

The monthly alternation procedure was used in order to minimise spill-over effects due to informal communication between groups and to keep the initial workload for case managers manageable.

Only the case managers in the rehabilitation departments were informed about monthly group allocation and were firmly instructed not to share this information with the therapeutic team.

Six weeks before discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, eligible patients were approached consecutively by a member of the therapeutic team in the rehabilitation department.

The number of included patients was limited to 15 per month to keep the workload for case managers manageable.

This team member provided a detailed oral and written explanation of the study. Written informed consent was provided on the following workday and baseline assessment was conducted immediately afterwards.

CMRE was specifically designed to help patients return to work and was added to standard care. CMRE is a manual-based intervention manual available from the first author , which in our study was carried out by one trained professional in charge in each rehabilitation department, all of whom were experienced in substance use disorder rehabilitation: two qualified social education workers with master degrees, a qualified social worker with a master degree, and an occupational therapist.

The focus and amount of CMRE was adjusted to the needs of the individual study participant. After recruitment, the intervention group received an in-depth assessment to identify any assistance needs in work-related and social issues.

During inpatient rehabilitation the functions of the case manager were to prepare and to co-ordinate transition from inpatient rehabilitation to competitive employment by collaborating with the multidisciplinary rehabilitation team and local Employment Agencies.

Thus, the participant and case manager developed a plan to access follow-up and social services. The case manager documented all activities of the CMRE.

In the intervention group no further additional care was offered apart from CMRE and standard care. The control group received standard care SC.

At the beginning of the study, participants of both groups were already placed in inpatient medical rehabilitation.

After inpatient medical rehabilitation, SC in substance use disorders comprised access to a range of services including general practitioners, medical specialist care, low-threshold programs i.

In addition, the German pension insurance offers open group meetings to patients after rehabilitation which take place at addiction advice and treatment centres every week or every second week.

Twenty sessions lasting 1. In the case of an imminent crisis one-to-one-sessions are available. Both group meetings and one-to-one-sessions are organised by qualified social workers or psychologists and address themes of preserving abstinence, handling crisis, linking with self-help groups, stabilising social network and use of follow-up services.

Secondary outcomes were abstinence, duration of employment, proportion of publicly funded employment, satisfaction with life, proportion of precarious housing situation, proportion of precarious financial situation, and use of follow-up services.

Most addiction aid facilities in Germany regularly use the Core Data Set for documentation and evaluation.

However the assessment of satisfaction with life is not validated so far. All other secondary outcomes except duration of employment were collected by using the data form of the German Core Data Set on the Documentation of Addiction Treatment Client.

In order to reduce response burdens, we restricted data assessment to the Core Data Set questionnaire in combination with a few additional items i.

The Core Data Set and collection procedures are described in detail elsewhere [ 12 ]. Therefore, a difference of 15 percentage points between the primary endpoints of the groups regarding was assumed to be clinically relevant for calculating the needed sample size.

Binary variables are reported using absolute and relative frequencies. 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.

Comparisons between groups at baseline were performed using a two-sided t-test. The analysis of the primary outcome measure at the 12 and the months follow-up was calculated using a linear regression model including the covariates intervention, study site, age, level of education and length of unemployment at the beginning of the inpatient rehabilitation.

In addition, for the primary outcome and the outcome abstinence, an intention-to-treat approach was performed using a calculation method from the German Society for Addiction Research and Treatment Deutsche Gesellschaft für Suchtforschung und Suchttherapie, DGSS.

Of the persons who were eligible for the study, 63 declined to participate. A total of 62 eligible patients were not included because the number of 15 patients to be included per month had already been reached.

A total of patients were allocated to the intervention group and patients to the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups.

Compared to the group still participating in the study, patients lost at follow-up showed no statistically significant differences regarding age, gender or duration of unemployment at admission.

The CMRE was performed for The number of contacts between the case manager and the participant was 16 7; 34 median; 10 th and 90 th percentile.

The mean contact time face-to-face or via telephone over the whole intervention period was A total of In addition, case managers realised 7 2; 21 median; 10th and 90th percentile contacts per participant with others than the participant e.

The most common contact persons were staff members from the regional Employment Agencies with At the months follow-up At months follow-up, this rate increased to An additional logistic regression assessed the statistical correlation of the amount of case management time per participant and return to work in the intervention group.

The results do not suggest dose-response effect. 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 CMRE is a manual-based intervention manual available from the first author , which in our study was carried out by one trained professional in charge in each rehabilitation department, all of whom were experienced in substance use disorder rehabilitation: two qualified social education workers with master degrees, a qualified social worker with a master degree, and an occupational therapist.

The focus and amount of CMRE was adjusted to the needs of the individual study participant. After recruitment, the intervention group received an in-depth assessment to identify any assistance needs in work-related and social issues.

During inpatient rehabilitation the functions of the case manager were to prepare and to co-ordinate transition from inpatient rehabilitation to competitive employment by collaborating with the multidisciplinary rehabilitation team and local Employment Agencies.

Thus, the participant and case manager developed a plan to access follow-up and social services.

The case manager documented all activities of the CMRE. In the intervention group no further additional care was offered apart from CMRE and standard care.

The control group received standard care SC. At the beginning of the study, participants of both groups were already placed in inpatient medical rehabilitation.

After inpatient medical rehabilitation, SC in substance use disorders comprised access to a range of services including general practitioners, medical specialist care, low-threshold programs i.

In addition, the German pension insurance offers open group meetings to patients after rehabilitation which take place at addiction advice and treatment centres every week or every second week.

Twenty sessions lasting 1. In the case of an imminent crisis one-to-one-sessions are available. Both group meetings and one-to-one-sessions are organised by qualified social workers or psychologists and address themes of preserving abstinence, handling crisis, linking with self-help groups, stabilising social network and use of follow-up services.

Secondary outcomes were abstinence, duration of employment, proportion of publicly funded employment, satisfaction with life, proportion of precarious housing situation, proportion of precarious financial situation, and use of follow-up services.

Most addiction aid facilities in Germany regularly use the Core Data Set for documentation and evaluation.

However the assessment of satisfaction with life is not validated so far. All other secondary outcomes except duration of employment were collected by using the data form of the German Core Data Set on the Documentation of Addiction Treatment Client.

In order to reduce response burdens, we restricted data assessment to the Core Data Set questionnaire in combination with a few additional items i.

The Core Data Set and collection procedures are described in detail elsewhere [ 12 ]. Therefore, a difference of 15 percentage points between the primary endpoints of the groups regarding was assumed to be clinically relevant for calculating the needed sample size.

Binary variables are reported using absolute and relative frequencies. 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.

Comparisons between groups at baseline were performed using a two-sided t-test. The analysis of the primary outcome measure at the 12 and the months follow-up was calculated using a linear regression model including the covariates intervention, study site, age, level of education and length of unemployment at the beginning of the inpatient rehabilitation.

In addition, for the primary outcome and the outcome abstinence, an intention-to-treat approach was performed using a calculation method from the German Society for Addiction Research and Treatment Deutsche Gesellschaft für Suchtforschung und Suchttherapie, DGSS.

Of the persons who were eligible for the study, 63 declined to participate. A total of 62 eligible patients were not included because the number of 15 patients to be included per month had already been reached.

A total of patients were allocated to the intervention group and patients to the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups.

Compared to the group still participating in the study, patients lost at follow-up showed no statistically significant differences regarding age, gender or duration of unemployment at admission.

The CMRE was performed for The number of contacts between the case manager and the participant was 16 7; 34 median; 10 th and 90 th percentile.

The mean contact time face-to-face or via telephone over the whole intervention period was A total of In addition, case managers realised 7 2; 21 median; 10th and 90th percentile contacts per participant with others than the participant e.

The most common contact persons were staff members from the regional Employment Agencies with At the months follow-up At months follow-up, this rate increased to An additional logistic regression assessed the statistical correlation of the amount of case management time per participant and return to work in the intervention group.

The results do not suggest dose-response effect. 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.

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. Google Scholar. 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. Registrierte Arbeitslose, Arbeitslosenquote nach Gebietsstand. Statistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit.

Accessed: 09 Nov Beeinflusst die Arbeitslosenquote die Wieder- Eingliederung in das Erwerbsleben nach medizinischer Rehabilitation?

Warnke Hrsg. Methods: This article is based on an analysis of secondary click here obtained from the German Statutory Pension Insurance Scheme and the Federal Statistical Office and on a selective review of the literature on comorbidities and available interventions. J Consult Clin Psychol. DOI: Improving linkage with substance abuse treatment using brief case learn more here and motivational interviewing.

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Video

, 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. Programm- oder Exportfehler click at this page Softwaresysteme zu identifizieren. Larissa Schwarzkopf Dipl. Die einzelnen aggregierten Ergebnisdateien werden einrichtungsweise in einem Tabellenband gebündelt und elektronisch an die GSDA übermittelt. Der Missingwert für die einzelnen Tabellen bewegt sich im Mittel um die fünf Prozent. Jahr: Autoren: Pfeiffer-Gerschel, T. Analysen über die Erhebungsjahre bis Damit gelingt es, veränderten Versorgungs- und Lebensrealitäten Rechnung zu tragen, ohne zeitreihenbezogene Aussagen auf Roulette System grundsätzlich zu beeinträchtigen. Grüne, B. Europäischer Drogenbericht Die mit dem Inkrafttreten des KDS Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik. Kurzberichte Epidemiologischer Suchtsurvey Hierbei werden besonders häufig Diagnosen z. Seitz, N. Teilweise entstehen aus den Sonderläufen auch wissenschaftliche Publikationen in Form von Zeitschriftenbeiträgen Brand et al. Schätzung der Anzahl problematischer und pathologischer Glücksspielerinnen und Glücksspieler in Bayern. Tabellenbände Trends. Dieser Wert legt fest, in wie vielen Meico maximaler Prozentwert Angaben zu einem bestimmten Item fehlen dürfen, damit die Daten einer Einrichtung für diese Tabelle see more werden. Diese Kernprozesse werden im Folgenden näher beschrieben. So wird verhindert, dass bei nur zwei datenliefernden Einrichtungen Angaben identifizierbar werden. Jahr: Autoren: Delle, S. Strupf, M. Katamnese Studie zu Beratung und Behandlung bei Glücksspielproblemen. PD Dr. Für den KDS-F bestehen die bedeutsamsten Änderungen in der Trennung von Konsummustern und Diagnosen, der Erfassung vielschichtiger psychosozialer Problembereiche zu Betreuungsbeginn und -ende sowie einer veränderten Erfassung der Konsummengen.

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik

Jahr: Autoren: Pfeiffer-Gerschel, T. Jahr: Autoren: Redaktion: Kraus, L. Suchtkrankenhilfe in Deutschland Substance use among students in 35 European countries. Zuletzt werden die aus Very Merry Christmas Daten entstehenden Veröffentlichungen benannt. Jahr: Autoren: Strupf, M. Analysen über die Erhebungsjahre bis

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Video

Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik

3 thoughts on “Deutsche Suchthilfestatistik Add Yours?

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *