Current studentsExisting staffContact us
 

Evaluating the impact of community-based treatment options on methamphetamine use: findings from the Methamphetamine Treatment Evaluation Study (MATES)

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMcKetin, R.
dc.contributor.authorNajman, J.
dc.contributor.authorBaker, A.
dc.contributor.authorLubman, D.
dc.contributor.authorDawe, S.
dc.contributor.authorAli, R.
dc.contributor.authorLee, N.
dc.contributor.authorMattick, R.
dc.contributor.authorMamun, A.
dc.date.issued2012
dc.description.abstractAIMS: 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.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityRebecca McKetin, Jake M. Najman, Amanda L. Baker, Dan I. Lubman, Sharon Dawe, Robert Ali, Nicole K. Lee, Richard P. Mattick and Abdullah Mamun
dc.identifier.citationAddiction, 2012; 107(11):1998-2008
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03933.x
dc.identifier.issn0965-2140
dc.identifier.issn1360-0443
dc.identifier.orcidAli, R. [0000-0003-2905-8153]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/75000
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd
dc.relation.grantNHMRC
dc.rights© 2012 The Authors. Addiction © 2012 Society for the Study of Addiction
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03933.x
dc.subjectAmphetamine
dc.subjectlongitudinal
dc.subjectmethamphetamine
dc.subjectoutcomes
dc.subjectpsychiatric comorbidity
dc.subjectsubstance abuse
dc.subjecttreatment
dc.subjectHIV risk
dc.subjectcrime
dc.titleEvaluating the impact of community-based treatment options on methamphetamine use: findings from the Methamphetamine Treatment Evaluation Study (MATES)
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Medicine publications