User involvement and desired service developments in drug treatment: Service user and provider views

Aims - To investigate the existing level of user involvement at selected agencies, to examine views about user involvement from both service-user and provider perspectives and to compare desired service developments. Design/Measurements - As part of a larger project, a series of semi-structured interviews was carried out between 2001 and 2003. Setting - Community-based drug services in Northern England. Participants - Service users (46) and service providers (51). Findings - Overall, the level of service-user involvement was low, with 16% of services having no user involvement at all. Nevertheless, service users expressed a desire for a high level of user involvement, compared with the low aspirations expressed by service providers. Service users' first priority for desired service developments was reduced waiting times, whereas service providers wished for increased provision of complementary therapies. Conclusions - The study highlighted important discrepancies regarding both desired level of user involvement and priorities for service developments between service users und providers. Given the current policies in this field and evidence that user involvement and closer partnerships between users and providers enhances treatment effectiveness, this lack of concurrence might be of major concern and working towards better understanding and balancing users' and providers' needs is highly recommended

Factors predicting drop out from, and retention in, specialist drug treatment services: A case control study in the North West of England

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background:</p> <p>In the United Kingdom (UK), the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA) considers retention to be the best available measure of drug treatment effectiveness. Accordingly, the NTA has set local treatment systems the annual target of retaining 75% of clients for 12 weeks or more, yet little assessment of this target or factors that improve retention has occurred. This study aims to quantify the proportion of people retained in treatment for 12 weeks in the North West of England and to identify factors associated with premature drop out.</p> <p>Methods:</p> <p>The North West National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) was used to identify treatment durations for everyone beginning a treatment episode between 1^stApril 2005 and 31^stMarch 2006 (N = 16626). Odds ratios, chi-square and logistic regression analyses compared clients retained for 12 weeks to clients whose discharge record showed they had prematurely dropped out before 12 weeks. Individuals with other outcomes were excluded from analyses.</p> <p>Results:</p> <p>75% of clients (N = 12230) were retained for 12 weeks and 10% (N = 1649) dropped out prematurely. Multivariate analysis showed drop out was more likely among Asian drug users (adjusted odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.08) than their white equivalents. Drop out was more likely among residents of Cumbria and Lancashire (adjusted odds ratio 1.80, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.15) and Greater Manchester (adjusted odds ratio 2.00, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.29) than Cheshire and Merseyside and less likely among alcohol users (adjusted odds ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.91). A significant interaction between age and deprivation was observed. For those aged 18 to 24 years and 25 to 34 years, drop out was significantly more likely among those living in affluent areas. For those in the older age groups the converse effect was observed.</p> <p>Conclusion:</p> <p>In combination, the drug treatment systems of the North West achieved the Government's retention target in 2005/06. A number of factors associated with drop out were identified; these should be considered in strategies that aim to improve retention. Drop out and retention are measures that capture the joint effect of many factors. Further work is required to evaluate the effect of deprivation.</p

Detoxification in rehabilitation in England: effective continuity of care or unhappy bedfellows?

There is evidence that residential detoxification alone does not provide satisfactory treatment outcomes and that outcomes are significantly enhanced when clients completing residential detoxification attend rehabilitation services (Gossop, Marsden, Stewart, & Rolfe, 1999; Ghodse, Reynolds, Baldacchino, et al., 2002). One way of increasing the likelihood of this continuity of treatment is by providing detoxification and rehabilitation within the same treatment facility to prevent drop-out, while the client awaits a rehabilitation bed or in the transition process. However, there is little research evidence available on the facilities that offer both medical detoxification and residential rehabilitation. The current study compares self-reported treatment provision in 87 residential rehabilitation services in England, 34 of whom (39.1%) reported that they offered detoxification services within their treatment programmes. Although there were no differences in self-reported treatment philosophies, residential rehabilitation services that offered detoxification were typically of shorter duration overall, had significantly more beds and reported offering more group work than residential rehabilitation services that did not offer detoxification. Outcomes were also different, with twice as many clients discharged on disciplinary grounds from residential rehabilitation services without detoxification facilities. The paper questions the UK classification of residential drug treatment services as either detoxification or rehabilitation and suggests the need for greater research focus on the aims, processes and outcomes of this group of treatment providers

Buprenorphine versus dihydrocodeine for opiate detoxification in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

Background Many drug users present to primary care requesting detoxification from illicit opiates. There are a number of detoxification agents but no recommended drug of choice. The purpose of this study is to compare buprenorphine with dihydrocodeine for detoxification from illicit opiates in primary care. Methods Open label randomised controlled trial in NHS Primary Care (General Practices), Leeds, UK. Sixty consenting adults using illicit opiates received either daily sublingual buprenorphine or daily oral dihydrocodeine. Reducing regimens for both interventions were at the discretion of prescribing doctor within a standard regimen of not more than 15 days. Primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opiates at final prescription as indicated by a urine sample. Secondary outcomes during detoxification period and at three and six months post detoxification were recorded. Results Only 23% completed the prescribed course of detoxification medication and gave a urine sample on collection of their final prescription. Risk of non-completion of detoxification was reduced if allocated buprenorphine (68% vs 88%, RR 0.58 CI 0.35–0.96, p = 0.065). A higher proportion of people allocated to buprenorphine provided a clean urine sample compared with those who received dihydrocodeine (21% vs 3%, RR 2.06 CI 1.33–3.21, p = 0.028). People allocated to buprenorphine had fewer visits to professional carers during detoxification and more were abstinent at three months (10 vs 4, RR 1.55 CI 0.96–2.52) and six months post detoxification (7 vs 3, RR 1.45 CI 0.84–2.49). Conclusion Informative randomised trials evaluating routine care within the primary care setting are possible amongst drug using populations. This small study generates unique data on commonly used treatment regimens

Reducing drug related deaths : a pre-implementation assessment of knowledge,barriers and enablers for naloxone distribution through general practice

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) Prisons Project Study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the United Kingdom (UK), there is an extensive market for the class 'A' drug heroin and many heroin users spend time in prison. People addicted to heroin often require prescribed medication when attempting to cease their drug use. The most commonly used detoxification agents in UK prisons are currently buprenorphine and methadone, both are recommended by national clinical guidelines. However, these agents have never been compared for opiate detoxification in the prison estate and there is a general paucity of research evaluating the most effective treatment for opiate detoxification in prisons. This study seeks to address this paucity by evaluating the most routinely used interventions amongst drug users within UK prisons.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study uses randomised controlled trial methodology to compare the open use of buprenorphine and methadone for opiate detoxification, given in the context of routine care, within three UK prisons. Prisoners who are eligible and give informed consent will be entered into the trial. The primary outcome will be abstinence status eight days after detoxification, as determined by a urine test. Secondary outcomes will be recorded during the detoxification and then at one, three and six months post-detoxification.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58823759</p

The role of evidence and the expert in contemporary processes of governance: the case of opioid substitution treatment policy in England

Background This paper is based on research examining stakeholder involvement in substitution treatment policy which was undertaken as part of the EU funded FP7 ALICE-RAP (Addictions and Lifestyles in Contemporary Europe – Reframing Addictions Project). In England, the research coincided with a policy shift towards a recovery orientated drug treatment framework and a heated debate surrounding the role of substitute prescribing. The study aimed to explore the various influences on the development of the new ‘recovery’ policy from the perspectives of the key stakeholders involved. Methods The paper is based on documentary analyses and key informant interviews with a range of stakeholders, including representatives of user organisations, treatment providers, civil servants, and members of expert committees. Results Drawing on the theoretical insights offered by Backstrand’s ‘civic science’ framework, the changing role of evidence and the position of experts in the processes of drugs policy governance are explored. ‘Evidence’ was used to problematise the issue of substitution treatment and employed to legitimise, justify and construct arguments around the possible directions of policy and practice. Conflicting beliefs about drug treatment and about motivation for policy change emerge in the argumentation, illustrating tensions in the governance of drug treatment and the power differentials separating different groups of stakeholders. Their role in the production of evidence also illustrates issues of power regarding the definition and development of ‘usable knowledge’. There were various attempts at greater representation of different forms of evidence and participation by a wider group of stakeholders in the debates surrounding substitution treatment. However, key national and international experts and the appointment of specialist committees continued to play dominant roles in building consensus and translating scientific evidence into policy discourse. Conclusion Substitution treatment policy has witnessed a challenge to the dominance of ‘scientific evidence’ within policy decision making, but in the absence of alternative evidence with an acceptable credibility and legitimacy base, traditional notions of what constitutes evidence based policy persist and there is a continuing lack of recognition of ‘civic science’

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) prisons project: a randomised controlled trial comparing dihydrocodeine and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many opiate users entering British prisons require prescribed medication to help them achieve abstinence. This commonly takes the form of a detoxification regime. Previously, a range of detoxification agents have been prescribed without a clear evidence base to recommend a drug of choice. There are few trials and very few in the prison setting. This study compares dihydrocodeine with buprenorphine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Open label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in a large remand prison in the North of England. Ninety adult male prisoners requesting an opiate detoxification were randomised to receive either daily sublingual buprenorphine or daily oral dihydrocodeine, given in the context of routine care. All participants gave written, informed consent. Reducing regimens were within a standard regimen of not more than 20 days and were at the discretion of the prescribing doctor. Primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opiates as indicated by a urine test at five days post detoxification. Secondary outcomes were collected during the detoxification period and then at one, three and six months post detoxification. Analysis was undertaken using relative risk tests for categorical data and unpaired t-tests for continuous data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>64% of those approached took part in the study. 63 men (70%) gave a urine sample at five days post detoxification. At the completion of detoxification, by intention to treat analysis, a higher proportion of people allocated to buprenorphine provided a urine sample negative for opiates (abstinent) compared with those who received dihydrocodeine (57% vs 35%, RR 1.61 CI 1.02–2.56). At the 1, 3 and 6 month follow-up points, there were no significant differences for urine samples negative for opiates between the two groups. Follow up rates were low for those participants who had subsequently been released into the community.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings would suggest that dihydrocodeine should not be routinely used for detoxification from opiates in the prison setting. The high relapse rate amongst those achieving abstinence would suggest the need for an increased emphasis upon opiate maintenance programmes in the prison setting.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07752728</p