First use of multiple substances: Identification of meaningful patterns

Context: Understanding the process through which adolescents and young adults are trying legal and illegal substances is a crucial point for the development of tailored prevention and treatment programs. However, patterns of substance first use can be very complex when multiple substances are considered, requiring reduction into a few meaningful number of categories. Data: We used data from a survey on adolescent and young adult health conducted in 2002 in Switzerland. Answers from 2212 subjects aged 19 and 20 were included. The first consumption ever of 10 substances (tobacco, cannabis, medicine to get high, sniff (volatile substances, and inhalants), ecstasy, GHB, LSD, cocaine, methadone, and heroin) was considered for a grand total of 516 different patterns. Methods: In a first step, automatic clustering was used to decrease the number of patterns to 50. Then, two groups of substance use experts, three social field workers, and three toxicologists and health professionals, were asked to reduce them into a maximum of 10 meaningful categories. Results: Classifications obtained through our methodology are of practical interest by revealing associations invisible to purely automatic algorithms. The article includes a detailed analysis of both final classifications, and a discussion on the advantages and limitations of our approach.

Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of pharmacotherapy in persons with poorly controlled chronic conditions has been proposed as a clinically meaningful process measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: To validate measures of treatment intensification by evaluating their associations with subsequent control in hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus across 35 medical facility populations in Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. DESIGN: Hierarchical analyses of associations of improvements in facility-level treatment intensification rates from 2001 to 2003 with patient-level risk factor levels at the end of 2003. PATIENTS: Members (515,072 and 626,130; age >20 years) with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes mellitus in 2001 and 2003, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment intensification for each risk factor defined as an increase in number of drug classes prescribed, of dosage for at least 1 drug, or switching to a drug from another class within 3 months of observed poor risk factor control. RESULTS: Facility-level improvements in treatment intensification rates between 2001 and 2003 were strongly associated with greater likelihood of being in control at the end of 2003 (P < or = 0.05 for each risk factor) after adjustment for patient- and facility-level covariates. Compared with facility rankings based solely on control, addition of percentages of poorly controlled patients who received treatment intensification changed 2003 rankings substantially: 14%, 51%, and 29% of the facilities changed ranks by 5 or more positions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification is tightly linked to improved control. Thus, it deserves consideration as a process measure for motivating quality improvement and possibly for measuring clinical performance.