SOCIAL-WORKERS AND SIGNIFICANT OTHERS AS COLLATERALS OF NON-RESPONDING ALCOHOLICS IN FOLLOW-UP-STUDIES USING MAIL QUESTIONNAIRES AND TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS

The subject of this study is non-response to mail questionnaires and s upplementary telephone interviews in evaluation of outcome of treatmen t for alcohol dependence. The study is based on two clinical populatio ns (n = 121 and 603) from Runnagarden, Sweden, a coercive care setting with both voluntary and compulsorily committed patients. The populati ons differed regarding size, treatment and background factors. Replies were obtained from two-and one-third of the patients in the two popul ations respectively. Replies from social workers were obtained in 67% and 57% of the cases respectively, and from significant others in 59% of a smaller sub-sample of the second population. With respect to the combination of patient and collaterals, we received at least one quest ionnaire reply concerning 96% and 79% of the two populations respectiv ely. In this study we analysed nonresponse and evaluated two methods t o remedy this, i.e., prediction of the outcome in non-responders from additional telephone follow-up and questionnaires to collaterals. Abou t two-thirds of patients who replied had improved, compared with about one-third of non-responders. Significant others replied more often if patients had improved, while social workers replied more often if pat ients had not improved. Patients who did not reply to mail questionnai res, but answered the same questions in a telephone interview, differe d in drinking outcome from non-responders, but not from mail responden ts. The method of using questionnaires addressed to social workers as an additional source of data can be used in countries with a general s ystem of social welfare services and is better than the use of signifi cant others as collaterals. In conclusion, replies obtained by additio nal telephone interviews were not representative for patients who did not return mail questionnaires. Non-response groups were highly select ed in each of the three questionnaires (addressed to patients, signifi cant others and social workers). Since the selectivity had opposite te ndencies, the combination of questionnaires to patients and to social workers seems to be the most representative.