ArticleJournal of addiction medicine
Development and Evaluation of the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Quick Version 4 (GAIN-Q4) for ASAM Dimension Ratings and Placement Recommendations for Adolescents and Adults.
Article in Journal of addiction medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Risk of Relapse Following Discharge from Non-Hospital Residential Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: A Systematic Review of Studies Published from 2018 to 2022.Substance abuse and rehabilitation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis article describes the development and evaluation of the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Quick Version 4 (GAIN-Q4) for the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) 4th edition patient placement dimension ratings and level of care placement recommendations. The research questions are as follows: (1) Can the GAIN-Q4 replicate recommendations from the prior longer instrument within adolescents and adults? (2) What are the substantive differences in the results by age?
methodsThe 35- to 45-minute GAIN-Q4 was developed through modification of the GAIN-Q3 and evaluated in terms of its ability to predict ASAM dimensional ratings and level of care placement recommendations from the 60- to 120-minute GAIN-I instrument. Data were obtained from participants who are adolescents aged 12 to 17 years (n = 101,897) and adults 18 years and older (n = 204,711) interviewed between 2002 and 2018 across 530 US sites. Reliability between measures was assessed with Cohen's κ statistic within age group; substantive differences by age were evaluated with logistic regression and χ 2 .
resultsThe ability of the 35- to 45-minute GAIN-Q4 measure to predict ASAM 6 dimensional ratings from the 60- to 120-minute GAIN-I was excellent ( κ > 0.8) for 4 dimensions, good (0.6-0.79) for 1, and fair for 1 (0.4-0.59) - both for adolescents and young adults. κ for general level of care placement to ASAM levels of care was excellent for both adolescents and young adults.
conclusionsThe GAIN-Q4 demonstrates the ability to predict ASAM dimensional ratings and general level of care placement reliably when compared to the lengthier GAIN-I measure. These results highlight that clinicians using the GAIN-Q4 measure will be equipped to evaluate patients from a wide variety of sources with an accurate and reliable screening tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.