These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20965568)

  • 1. Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36.
    Evans E; Anglin MD; Urada D; Yang J
    Eval Program Plann; 2011 May; 34(2):124-34. PubMed ID: 20965568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Impact of court-mandated substance abuse treatment on clinical decision making.
    Niv N; Hamilton A; Hser YI
    J Behav Health Serv Res; 2009 Oct; 36(4):505-16. PubMed ID: 18618265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Predictors of short-term treatment outcomes among California's Proposition 36 participants.
    Hser YI; Evans E; Teruya C; Huang D; Anglin MD
    Eval Program Plann; 2007 May; 30(2):187-96. PubMed ID: 17689324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Early implementation of Proposition 36: criminal justice and treatment system issues in eight counties.
    Speiglman R; Klein D; Miller R; Noble A
    J Psychoactive Drugs; 2003 May; 35 Suppl 1():133-41. PubMed ID: 12825756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment.
    Evans E; Li L; Hser YI
    Eval Program Plann; 2009 Aug; 32(3):204-12. PubMed ID: 19150133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: treatment capacity and displacement.
    Hser YI; Teruya C; Brown AH; Huang D; Evans E; Anglin MD
    Am J Public Health; 2007 Jan; 97(1):104-9. PubMed ID: 17138930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders.
    Evans E; Li L; Hser YI
    J Subst Abuse Treat; 2008 Dec; 35(4):410-8. PubMed ID: 18514474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Perspectives on the drug court model across systems: a process evaluation.
    Wolfe EL; Guydish J; Woods W; Tajima B
    J Psychoactive Drugs; 2004 Sep; 36(3):379-86. PubMed ID: 15559684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. High-risk offenders participating in court-supervised substance abuse treatment: characteristics, treatment received, and factors associated with recidivism.
    Evans E; Huang D; Hser YI
    J Behav Health Serv Res; 2011 Oct; 38(4):510-25. PubMed ID: 21479770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Incorporating a public health approach in drug law: lessons from local expansion of treatment capacity and access under California's Proposition 36.
    Klein D; Miller RE; Noble A; Speiglman R
    Milbank Q; 2004; 82(4):723-57. PubMed ID: 15595948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Workforce professionalism in drug treatment services: impact of California's Proposition 36.
    Wu F; Hser YI
    J Subst Abuse Treat; 2011 Jan; 40(1):44-55. PubMed ID: 21036513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Employment services utilization and outcomes among substance abusing offenders participating in California's proposition 36 drug treatment initiative.
    Evans E; Hser YI; Huang D
    J Behav Health Serv Res; 2010 Oct; 37(4):461-76. PubMed ID: 19688598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. When you assume...the reality of implementing a legally mandated substance abuse treatment program.
    Wiley D; Beattie M; Nguyen H; Puckett K; Banerjee K; Poon W
    J Psychoactive Drugs; 2004 May; Suppl 2():175-80. PubMed ID: 15279130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Drug treatment program compliance and resistance activities during implementation of California's Proposition 36.
    Reynolds G
    J Health Hum Serv Adm; 2009; 32(1):85-106. PubMed ID: 19558034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Substance abuse programs and Proposition 13: opportunities for change.
    Brenna TR
    Int J Addict; 1981 May; 16(4):759-69. PubMed ID: 7287253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparative Effectiveness of California's Proposition 36 and Drug Court Programs Before and After Propensity Score Matching.
    Evans E; Li L; Urada D; Anglin MD
    Crime Delinq; 2014 Sep; 60(6):909-938. PubMed ID: 25342859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Behavioral health issue brief: California's Proposition 36 and other state diversion programs: moving drug offenders out of prison and into treatment: year end report-2003.
    Colker AC
    Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv; 2003 Dec; ():1-24. PubMed ID: 14870722
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Treatment outcomes for methamphetamine users: California Proposition 36 and comparison clients.
    Brecht ML; Urada D
    J Psychoactive Drugs; 2011 Sep; Suppl 7():68-76. PubMed ID: 22185041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Measuring collaboration and integration activities in criminal justice and substance abuse treatment agencies.
    Fletcher B; Lehman W; Wexler H; Melnick G; Taxman F; Young D
    Drug Alcohol Depend; 2009 Aug; 103 Suppl 1():S54-S64. PubMed ID: 20088023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Treating drug-abusing offenders. Initial findings from a five-county study on the impact of California's Proposition 36 on the treatment system and patient outcomes.
    Hser YI; Teruya C; Evans EA; Longshore D; Grella C; Farabee D
    Eval Rev; 2003 Oct; 27(5):479-505. PubMed ID: 14531316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.