Retention of patients who entered methadone maintenance via an interim methadone clinic

Patricia Friedmann, D. C. Des Jarlais, N. P. Peyser, S. E. Nichols, E. Drew, R. G. Newman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Time in treatment is considered an important predictor of good outcomes for drug abuse treatment. Patient retention would be of particular concern for low-service types of treatment. Interim methadone maintenance was developed as an alternative to waiting lists and as a method of providing HIV risk-reduction services to heroin addicts waiting for treatment, and does not include the regular counseling required in comprehensive methadone treatment. This analysis compares the retention of patients first admitted to an interim methadone clinic versus that of patients admitted directly to a comprehensive methadone clinic. The two groups did not differ with regard to demographic characteristics and drug of abuse at the time of admission. The two groups did not differ with respect to demographics. The three-, six-, and 12-month retention rates of patients first admitted to the interim clinic were 78%, 69%, and 62%, respectively. The three-, six-, and 12-month retention rates for patients admitted directly to a traditional methadone clinic were 84%, 76%, and 68%, respectively. Life-table analysis revealed that the two groups did not differ significantly with regard to retention (p=0.17). Interim treatment does not appear to adversely affect overall retention in treatment. Three- and six-month retention rates of interim clinic patients fall within the range of six-month nationwide retention rates reported by the GAO. Factors associated with discharge from treatment are examined for both groups.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)217-221
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Psychoactive Drugs
Volume26
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Methadone
Therapeutics
Demography
Life Tables
Waiting Lists
Heroin
Street Drugs
Risk Reduction Behavior
Substance-Related Disorders
Counseling
HIV

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)
  • Psychology(all)
  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

Friedmann, P., Des Jarlais, D. C., Peyser, N. P., Nichols, S. E., Drew, E., & Newman, R. G. (1994). Retention of patients who entered methadone maintenance via an interim methadone clinic. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 26(2), 217-221.

Retention of patients who entered methadone maintenance via an interim methadone clinic. / Friedmann, Patricia; Des Jarlais, D. C.; Peyser, N. P.; Nichols, S. E.; Drew, E.; Newman, R. G.

In: Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1994, p. 217-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Friedmann, P, Des Jarlais, DC, Peyser, NP, Nichols, SE, Drew, E & Newman, RG 1994, 'Retention of patients who entered methadone maintenance via an interim methadone clinic', Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 217-221.
Friedmann, Patricia ; Des Jarlais, D. C. ; Peyser, N. P. ; Nichols, S. E. ; Drew, E. ; Newman, R. G. / Retention of patients who entered methadone maintenance via an interim methadone clinic. In: Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 1994 ; Vol. 26, No. 2. pp. 217-221.
@article{3888389ce70841f38200a2d62d1829a2,
title = "Retention of patients who entered methadone maintenance via an interim methadone clinic",
abstract = "Time in treatment is considered an important predictor of good outcomes for drug abuse treatment. Patient retention would be of particular concern for low-service types of treatment. Interim methadone maintenance was developed as an alternative to waiting lists and as a method of providing HIV risk-reduction services to heroin addicts waiting for treatment, and does not include the regular counseling required in comprehensive methadone treatment. This analysis compares the retention of patients first admitted to an interim methadone clinic versus that of patients admitted directly to a comprehensive methadone clinic. The two groups did not differ with regard to demographic characteristics and drug of abuse at the time of admission. The two groups did not differ with respect to demographics. The three-, six-, and 12-month retention rates of patients first admitted to the interim clinic were 78{\%}, 69{\%}, and 62{\%}, respectively. The three-, six-, and 12-month retention rates for patients admitted directly to a traditional methadone clinic were 84{\%}, 76{\%}, and 68{\%}, respectively. Life-table analysis revealed that the two groups did not differ significantly with regard to retention (p=0.17). Interim treatment does not appear to adversely affect overall retention in treatment. Three- and six-month retention rates of interim clinic patients fall within the range of six-month nationwide retention rates reported by the GAO. Factors associated with discharge from treatment are examined for both groups.",
author = "Patricia Friedmann and {Des Jarlais}, {D. C.} and Peyser, {N. P.} and Nichols, {S. E.} and E. Drew and Newman, {R. G.}",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "217--221",
journal = "Journal of Psychoactive Drugs",
issn = "0279-1072",
publisher = "Haight-Ashbury Publications",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Retention of patients who entered methadone maintenance via an interim methadone clinic

AU - Friedmann, Patricia

AU - Des Jarlais, D. C.

AU - Peyser, N. P.

AU - Nichols, S. E.

AU - Drew, E.

AU - Newman, R. G.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - Time in treatment is considered an important predictor of good outcomes for drug abuse treatment. Patient retention would be of particular concern for low-service types of treatment. Interim methadone maintenance was developed as an alternative to waiting lists and as a method of providing HIV risk-reduction services to heroin addicts waiting for treatment, and does not include the regular counseling required in comprehensive methadone treatment. This analysis compares the retention of patients first admitted to an interim methadone clinic versus that of patients admitted directly to a comprehensive methadone clinic. The two groups did not differ with regard to demographic characteristics and drug of abuse at the time of admission. The two groups did not differ with respect to demographics. The three-, six-, and 12-month retention rates of patients first admitted to the interim clinic were 78%, 69%, and 62%, respectively. The three-, six-, and 12-month retention rates for patients admitted directly to a traditional methadone clinic were 84%, 76%, and 68%, respectively. Life-table analysis revealed that the two groups did not differ significantly with regard to retention (p=0.17). Interim treatment does not appear to adversely affect overall retention in treatment. Three- and six-month retention rates of interim clinic patients fall within the range of six-month nationwide retention rates reported by the GAO. Factors associated with discharge from treatment are examined for both groups.

AB - Time in treatment is considered an important predictor of good outcomes for drug abuse treatment. Patient retention would be of particular concern for low-service types of treatment. Interim methadone maintenance was developed as an alternative to waiting lists and as a method of providing HIV risk-reduction services to heroin addicts waiting for treatment, and does not include the regular counseling required in comprehensive methadone treatment. This analysis compares the retention of patients first admitted to an interim methadone clinic versus that of patients admitted directly to a comprehensive methadone clinic. The two groups did not differ with regard to demographic characteristics and drug of abuse at the time of admission. The two groups did not differ with respect to demographics. The three-, six-, and 12-month retention rates of patients first admitted to the interim clinic were 78%, 69%, and 62%, respectively. The three-, six-, and 12-month retention rates for patients admitted directly to a traditional methadone clinic were 84%, 76%, and 68%, respectively. Life-table analysis revealed that the two groups did not differ significantly with regard to retention (p=0.17). Interim treatment does not appear to adversely affect overall retention in treatment. Three- and six-month retention rates of interim clinic patients fall within the range of six-month nationwide retention rates reported by the GAO. Factors associated with discharge from treatment are examined for both groups.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028307317&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028307317&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7931866

AN - SCOPUS:0028307317

VL - 26

SP - 217

EP - 221

JO - Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

JF - Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

SN - 0279-1072

IS - 2

ER -