Effect of Incarceration History on Outcomes of Primary Care Office-based Buprenorphine/Naloxone
- 118 Downloads
Behaviors associated with opioid dependence often involve criminal activity, which can lead to incarceration. The impact of a history of incarceration on outcomes in primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone is not known.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether having a history of incarceration affects response to primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment.
In this post hoc secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, we compared demographic, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes among 166 participants receiving primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment stratifying on history of incarceration.
Participants with a history of incarceration have similar treatment outcomes with primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone than those without a history of incarceration (consecutive weeks of opioid-negative urine samples, 6.2 vs. 5.9, p = 0.43; treatment retention, 38% vs. 46%, p = 0.28).
Prior history of incarceration does not appear to impact primary care office-based treatment of opioid dependence with buprenorphine/naloxone. Community health care providers can be reassured that initiating buprenorphine/naloxone in opioid dependent individuals with a history of incarceration will have similar outcomes as those without this history.
KEY WORDSbuprenorphine/naloxone incarceration primary care jail prison
This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (R01 DA009803). Dr. Moore is supported by NIDA (K01 DA022398), Dr. Sullivan is a Robert Wood Johnson Physician Faculty Scholar, and Dr. Fiellin is supported by NIDA (R01 DA019511, R01 DA025991, and R01DA020576).
Conflicts of Interest
None of the authors reported any conflicts of interest.
- 1.Sabol WJ, Couture H. Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2007. Washington DC: US Department of Justice; 2008.Google Scholar
- 2.The PEW Center on the States. One in 31: the long reach of American corrections. In. Washington, DC; 2009.Google Scholar
- 3.Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug Facts-Heroin. Executive Office of the President, ONDCP, 2007. (Accessed at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/heroin/index.html)
- 5.Nunn A, Zaller N, Dickman S, Trimbur C, Nijhawan A, Rich JD. Methadone and buprenorphine prescribing and referral practices in US prison systems: Results from a Nationwide Survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009Google Scholar
- 6.Mumola C, Karberg JC. Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners. 2006; Washgington DC.Google Scholar
- 12.Diversion and Abuse of Buprenoprhine: A Brief Assessment of Emerging Indicators. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment., 2006 (Accessed February 9, 2010, at http://buprenorphine.samhsa.gov/Buprenorphine_FinalReport_12.6.06.pdf.)
- 15.Travis J. But they all come back: facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; 2005.Google Scholar
- 21.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.Google Scholar
- 23.National Commission on Correctional Health Care ed. The health status of soon-to-be-released inmates: a report to congress I & II. 2002.Google Scholar
- 24.McLellan TA, Zanis D, Incmikoski R, et al. Treatment Service Review (TSR). In: The Center for Studies in Addiction, Department of Psychiatry: Philadelphia VA Medical Center & The University of Pennsylvania; 1989Google Scholar
- 26.Hindelang MJ, Hiraschi T, Weis JG. Measuring delinquency. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1981.Google Scholar
- 34.Knight K, Halcom M, Simpson D. TCU psychosocial functioning motivation scale: manual on psychometric properties. In: Institute for Behavioral Research; Texas Christian University; 1994.Google Scholar
- 43.Thornberry TP, Krohn M. The self report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In: Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice. Washington DC: United States Department of Justice; 2000.Google Scholar