EVALUATION STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Evaluating the impact of community-based treatment options on methamphetamine use: findings from the Methamphetamine Treatment Evaluation Study (MATES).
Addiction 2012 November
AIMS: To evaluate the impact of community-based drug treatment on methamphetamine use using inverse probability of treatment-weighted (IPTW) estimators to derive treatment effects.
DESIGN: A longitudinal prospective cohort study with follow-ups at 3 months, 1 year and 3 years. Treatment effects were derived by comparing groups at follow-up. IPTW estimators were used to adjust for pre-treatment differences between groups.
SETTING: Sydney and Brisbane, Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Participants were methamphetamine users entering community-based detoxification (n = 112) or residential rehabilitation (n = 248) services and a quasi-control group of methamphetamine users (n = 101) recruited from the community.
MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of methamphetamine use between interviews (no use, less than weekly, 1-2 days per week, 3+ days per week), continuous abstinence from methamphetamine use, past month methamphetamine use and methamphetamine dependence.
FINDINGS: Detoxification did not reduce methamphetamine use at any follow-up relative to the quasi-control group. Relative to quasi-control and detoxification groups combined, residential rehabilitation produced large reductions in the frequency of methamphetamine use at 3 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.36, P < 0.001), with a marked attenuation of this effect at 1 year (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.97, P = 0.038) and 3 years (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.42-1.19, P = 0.189). The greatest impact was for abstinence: for every 100 residential rehabilitation clients there was a gain of 33 being continuously abstinent at 3 months, with this falling to 14 at 1 year and 6 at 3 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Community-based residential rehabilitation may produce a time-limited decrease in methamphetamine use, while detoxification alone does not appear to do so.
DESIGN: A longitudinal prospective cohort study with follow-ups at 3 months, 1 year and 3 years. Treatment effects were derived by comparing groups at follow-up. IPTW estimators were used to adjust for pre-treatment differences between groups.
SETTING: Sydney and Brisbane, Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Participants were methamphetamine users entering community-based detoxification (n = 112) or residential rehabilitation (n = 248) services and a quasi-control group of methamphetamine users (n = 101) recruited from the community.
MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of methamphetamine use between interviews (no use, less than weekly, 1-2 days per week, 3+ days per week), continuous abstinence from methamphetamine use, past month methamphetamine use and methamphetamine dependence.
FINDINGS: Detoxification did not reduce methamphetamine use at any follow-up relative to the quasi-control group. Relative to quasi-control and detoxification groups combined, residential rehabilitation produced large reductions in the frequency of methamphetamine use at 3 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.36, P < 0.001), with a marked attenuation of this effect at 1 year (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.97, P = 0.038) and 3 years (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.42-1.19, P = 0.189). The greatest impact was for abstinence: for every 100 residential rehabilitation clients there was a gain of 33 being continuously abstinent at 3 months, with this falling to 14 at 1 year and 6 at 3 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Community-based residential rehabilitation may produce a time-limited decrease in methamphetamine use, while detoxification alone does not appear to do so.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app