Advertisement

Follow-up Study of 105 Patients Who Left Treatment

  • John C. Ball
  • Alan Ross

Abstract

Attention is focused in this chapter on 105 patients who left the six methadone maintenance programs after their first interview and who were reinterviewed in the community a year later. Before discussing the findings from this follow-up study, it is pertinent to address the issue of retention in methadone maintenance treatment.

Keywords

Retention Rate Intravenous Drug Drug Abuse Treatment Methadone Maintenance Treatment Methadone Maintenance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cooper JR, Altman F, Brown B, Czechowicz D (eds) (1983) NIDA Treatment Research Monograph Series: Research on the Treatment of Narcotic Addiction: State of the Art. (ADM) 83–1281. Rockville: US Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Corty E, Ball JC (1987) Admissions to methadone maintenance: comparisons between programs and implications for treatment, J Subst Abuse Treat 4: 181–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hubbard RL, Marsden ME, Rachal JV, et al (1989) Drug Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina PressGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    United States General Accounting Office (1990) Methadone maintenance: some treatment programs are not effective; greater federal oversight needed. In: GAO Report to the Chairman, Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, House of Representatives (March). Washington, DC: US Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ball JC, Pabon DO (1965) Locating and interviewing narcotic addicts in Puerto Rico. Sociol Soc Res 49: 401–411Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vaillant GE (1966) A twelve-year follow-up of New York narcotic addicts. I. The relation of treatment to outcome. Am J Psychiatry 22: 727–737Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Donnell JA (1969) Narcotic Addicts in Kentucky. USPHS Publication 1881. Washington, DC: US Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ball JC (1975) Sample selection in American follow-up studies of drug abusers. In Bostran H, Larsson T, Ljungstedt N (eds): Drug Dependence—Treatment and Treatment Evaluation. Skandia International Symposia, 1974. pp 221–231Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McGlothlin WH, Anglin MD (1981) Long-term follow-up of clients of high and low dose methadone programs, Arch Gen Psychiatry 38: 1055–1063PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maddux JF, Desmond DP (1981) Careers of Opioid Users. New York: PraegerGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nurco DN, Cisin IH, Batter MB (1981) Addict careers. II. The first ten years. Int J Addict 16: 1327–1356Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ball JC, Lange WR, Myers CP, Friedman SR (1988) Reducing the risk of AIDS through methadone maintenance treatment, J Health Soc Behav 29: 214–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    LaPorte C (1989) Personal communicationsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bespalec, DA (1974) Relapse rates after treatment for heroin addiction. J comm Psychiatry 2, pp 85–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Ball
    • 1
  • Alan Ross
    • 2
  1. 1.National Institute on Drug Abuse-Addiction Research CenterUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsJohns Hopkins School of HygieneBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations