This topic area focuses on the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve the health, safety, or employment outcomes for people with Substance Use Disorder (SUD), as well as those that contribute to building a behavioral health workforce to provide treatment for SUD and to support recovery efforts. CLEAR conducted a review of evidence on the topic, drawing on two DOL-funded literature reviews: Workers’ Compensation and the Opioid Epidemic: State of the Field in Opioid Prescription Management and The Role of the Workforce System in Addressing the Opioid Crisis: A Review of the Literature.
Substance Use Disorder
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area includes studies published from 2010 through 2022.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of recovery housing on employment and earnings for individuals with opioid use disorders receiving Reinforcement Based Treatment (RBT). Using data…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the effects of an employment intervention tailored for drug-involved offenders on employment and earnings outcomes. The study was a randomized controlled…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Job Seekers' Workshop (JSW) on employment outcomes among unemployed or underemployed patients receiving treatment for substance use disorders. …Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) on employment. The study was a randomized control trial that assigned 45 individuals with moderate to…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to determine whether a job skills training intervention, the Job Seekers’ Workshop (JSW), improved employment outcomes and reduced alcohol use among an American Indian…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of California's Proposition 36-funded employment services on employment, earnings, public benefit receipt, and health and safety. Using outcome…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of an integrated drug counseling and employment intervention on employment, earnings, drug use, and HIV risk behaviors among clients in methadone…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of a therapeutic workplace on employment, earnings and wages, and public benefits receipt. This study used a randomized controlled trial. …
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.