This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Irving Maltzman, PhD
University of California Los Angeles

JAMA. 1987;257(23):3229.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—

Miller et al are in error on several counts. The 60% to 65% industry norm for abstinence-oriented programs is not a "gross and unsubstantiated estimate of outcomes... at variance with empirical evidence." It is not surprising that the cited review by Costello of treatments covering the period between 1951 and 1973 produced a poor average rate of outcome. Results were reported for widely different kinds of treatments. They included outcomes from such treatments as apneic paralysis and one reported by "Nathan et al... [who] studied an outpatient modality wherein it appeared that the average patient attended a 5 to 20 minute session once monthly. Poor outcome was observed."

It would be expected that industry treatment facilities with a better trained and larger staff, better supervision, and a greater capacity for intensive treatment and aftercare would generate a better treatment outcome rate than the average of the studies reviewed . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?