Strategies for Improving Methadone Treatment Process and Outcomes

Simpson, D. Dwayne; Joe, George W.; Dansereau, Donald F.; Chatham, Lois R.

doi:10.1177/002204269702700205

Cited by 74 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Older clients had better outcomes, whereas the more clients believed in the program, the longer they stayed, regardless of the clinic setting. Interestingly, "treatment process constructs" such as treatment satisfaction and counseling rapport, which have previously been found to be more important than belief in the program (Joe et al, 1999;Simpson & Joe, 1997), were not found to be significant predictors in this study. Treatment process constructs were already high for both those who remained in the program and those who dropped out.…”

Section: Rskocontrasting

confidence: 75%

Predictive factors for treatment retention in methadone programs in Indonesia

Sarasvita¹,

Tonkin²,

Utomo³

et al. 2012

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Rskocontrasting

confidence: 75%

Predictive factors for treatment retention in methadone programs in Indonesia

Sarasvita¹,

Tonkin²,

Utomo³

et al. 2012

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Dropping out of treatment correlated negatively with at least one positive individual change in the SCL-90 scales (r = -.338, p = .004), but not with the EuropASI Severity scales at intake. The predictor value of dropout seems to be small, but is in accordance with findings of other studies [32]. The relatively low dropout rate in the treatment as usual may be due to the more frequent treatment reactions to the individual risk of dropping out compared to the experimental treatment groups.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Dropout from treatment is a well-known negative predictor of treatment outcome in addiction [29,32]), but weeks in treatment could be more sensitive in separating the two groups. (2) Age, education, and gender are unclear predictors, but they are usually control variables to compare patient samples.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manualized Psychosocial Treatment Versus Standard Care in Opioid Maintenance Treatment: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial and Follow-up Study

Küfner¹,

Melia

Soyka

2014

J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. Ment. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychosocial interventions play an unclear complex role within maintenance treatment for opioid addiction. In this study, the hypothesis was that manualized psychosocial treatment was more effective than psychosocial treatment as usual. Moreover, the question was to find subgroups of patients who do not need or benefit from enhanced psychosocial treatment. The study design contains two manualized treatment groups and a control group of treatment as usual. There are two randomizations: (1) From the beginning, all patients were randomized to methadone or buprenorphine. (2) After having finished the control group treatment-as-usual, the subsequent patients were in addition randomly allocated to basic treatment or indicative treatment. From 122 patients in 3 treatment centers, 64 could be reached at the 1-year follow-up. Measurement instruments were the EuropASI, SCL-90, and documentation standards. Primary outcome criteria were drug consumption in the follow-up period of 6 months; secondary outcome criteria included individual changes in the EuropASI composite scores and the SCL-90 scales. Regarding hard drugs (all illegal drugs except cannabis, but including non-prescribed tranquilizers) the proportion of patient without use of drugs in the last 30 days increased from 1.9 % at intake to 54.7 % in the last month of the follow-up period without differences in the 3 psychosocial treatment groups. 76.1 % of those patients with at least one increased T-value ([60) in any of the 9 SCL scales showed at least one positive individual change in the follow-up period, whereas only 12.5 % of those with no increased T-value showed any positive changes. Regarding the use of hard drugs in the follow-up no psychosocial treatment was superior. The flexibility of psychosocial treatment as to meeting individual needs of the patients seems to be crucial. Those patients without a higher SCL-90 T-score may not require an intensive psychosocial treatment package.

show abstract

“…Establishing conceptual foundations representing the way treatment process and outcomes are related has been the primary focus of research summarized by the TCU Treatment Model (Simpson, 2001(Simpson, , 2004Simpson, Joe, Dansereau, & Chatham, 1997;. This model was created initially as a heuristic to integrate a body of research that accrued as part of several interrelated projects conducted over the past three decades (Simpson & Brown, 1999;Simpson, Joe, Rowan-Szal, & Greener, 1997;Simpson & Sells, 1982.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%