Influence of Time in Treatment and Follow-Up Duration on Methadone Treatment Outcomes

  • Lawrence Greenfield
  • Douglas Fountain
Article

Abstract

Data for 422 methadone treatment clients in the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) were analyzed. Clients maintained continuously in methadone treatment for longer than 12 months and clients who leftbetween 3–12 months were compared with clients treated for less than 3 months. Additionally, clients treated for 3–12 months who had short follow-up periods (6-month average) were compared with 3–12-month clients with long follow-up periods (11-month average). Positive treatment outcomes includinglower drug use, reduced risk of viral infectionand sexually transmitted disease (through needle sharing and multiple sex partners), and less criminality wereassociated with both longer duration treatment and shorter follow-up periods. The findings suggested that continuous methadone treatment of 12 or more months is optimal, whereas stays of less than3 months may be ineffective. Furthermore, stays of 3–12 months are likelyto be beneficial over a relatively short time span, for example 6 months.

methadone heroin treatment duration follow-up outcomes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ball, J. C., & Ross, A. (1991). The effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment: Patients, programs, services, and outcome. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Fulco, C. E., Liverman, C. T., & Earley, L. E. (Eds.). (1995). Development of medications for the treatment of opiate and cocaine dependence: Issues for the government and private sector. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Gerstein, D. R., Johnson, R. A., Harwood, H. J., Fountain, D. L., Suter, N., & Malloy, K. M. (1994). Evaluating recovery services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA). Sacramento,CA: State of California, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.Google Scholar
  4. Greenfield, L. (1999). Methadone treatment outcomes in the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study. Submitted to the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment under the National Evaluation Data Services contract. Fairfax, VA: Caliber Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Hubbard, R. L., Craddock, S.G., Flynn, P. M., Anderson, J., & Etheridge, R.M. (1997). Overview of 1-year follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 261–278.Google Scholar
  6. Hubbard, R. L., Marsden, M. E., Rachal, J. V., Harwood, H. J., Cavanaugh, E. R., & Ginzburg, H. M. (1989). Drug abuse treatment: National study of effectiveness (pp. 71–98). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  7. Joseph, H., & Appel, P. (1993). Historical perspectives and public health issues. In M.W. Parrino (Ed.), State methadone treatment guidelines (Treatment Improvement Protocol No. 1, pp. 11–24). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.Google Scholar
  8. Koenig, L., Denmead, G., Nguyen, Harrison, M., & Harwood, R. (1999). The costs and benefits of substance abuse treatment: Findings from the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES). Submitted to the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Fairfax, VA: Caliber Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Lowinson, J. H., Payte, J. T., Salsitz, E., Joseph, H., Marion, I. J., & Dole, V. P. (1997). Methadone maintenance. In J.H. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, R. B. Millman, & J.G. Landgrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook (3rd ed., pp. 405–414). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  10. Magura, S., Nwakeze, P. C., & Demsky, S. (1998). Pre-and in-treatment predictors of retention in methadone treatment using survival analysis. Addiction, 93, 51–60.Google Scholar
  11. Metzger, D. S., Woody, G. E., McLellan, A.T., O'Brien, C. P., Druly, P., Navaline, H., DePhilippis, D., Stolley, P., & Abrutyn, E. (1993). Human immunodeficiency virus seroconversion among intravenous drug users in-and out-of-treatment: An 18-month prospective followup. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 6, 1049–1056.Google Scholar
  12. National Opinion Research Center (NORC). (1997). Final report: National Treatment Improvement Study. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.Google Scholar
  13. Novick, D. M., Joseph, H., Croxson, T. S., Salsitz, E. A., Wang, G., Richman, B. L., Poretsky, L., Keefe, J.B., & Whimbey, E. (1990). Absence of antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in long-term, socially rehabilitated methadone maintenance patients. Archives of Internal Medicine, 150, 97–99.Google Scholar
  14. Office of Applied Studies. (1998). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Google Scholar
  15. Office of Applied Studies. (1999). Drug Abuse Warning Network, 1999. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Google Scholar
  16. Rettig, R. A., & Yarmolinsky, A. (Eds.). (1995). Federal regulation of methadone treatment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. Simpson, D. D., & Sells, S. B. (1982). Effectiveness of treatment for drug abuse: An overview of the DARP research program. Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse, 2, 7–29.Google Scholar
  18. Simpson, D.D., & Sells, S.B. (1990). Opioid addiction and treatment: 12-year follow-up. Malablar, FL: Reiger.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence Greenfield
    • 1
  • Douglas Fountain
  1. 1.Caliber AssociatesFairfax

Personalised recommendations