Mental health problems: Are they or are they not a risk factor for dropout from drug treatment? A systematic review of the evidence

Background: A sizeable number of recent studies investigating whether clients with substance misuse and mental health problems (dual diagnosis clients) are at heightened risk of dropout from drug treatment have been published. It is timely that their findings are brought together in a comprehensive review of the current evidence. Aims: The aim of the review is to examine whether dually diagnosed clients are less likely to be retained in drug treatment than clients without mental health problems, and, if so, whether this varies for clients diagnosed with different types of mental health problems. Methods: The review considers peer-reviewed research published after 1 January 1990, which was located using the literature databases Medline and PsycInfo. Predefined search terms were used. Further papers were identified from the bibliographies of relevant publications. Findings: 58 studies (84% from the USA) met the inclusion criteria for the review. The findings suggest that for most clients, having a past history of mental health problems does not influence the likelihood of being retained in drug treatment. The body of evidence regarding concurrent mental health problems is contradictory. On the whole, the majority of studies suggest that neither presence nor severity of depressive, anxiety, or other Axis-I disorders is related to retention, but these findings are not entirely unequivocal, as a few studies report strong positive or negative associations between depression and anxiety disorders and retention. Few researchers looked separately at psychotic spectrum disorders hence no conclusions could be drawn. The presence of most personality disorders also did not appear to affect treatment tenure, with the exception of antisocial personality disorder, for which the evidence points towards a greater risk of dropout. Conclusions: The balance of evidence suggests that, overall, dual diagnosis clients with Axis-I disorders who seek treatment in drug treatment services are retained as well as clients without dual diagnosis. Subgroups of clients who appear more vulnerable to premature dropout include those with antisocial personality disorder. Methodological shortcomings of the reviewed studies and resulting implications for this review and future research are discussed

Differences in client and therapist views of the working alliance in drug treatment

Background - There is growing evidence that the therapeutic alliance is one of the most consistent predictors of retention and outcomes in drug treatment. Recent psychotherapy research has indicated that there is a lack of agreement between client, therapist and observer ratings of the therapeutic alliance; however, the clinical implications of this lack of consensus have not been explored. Aims - The aims of the study are to (1) explore the extent to which, in drug treatment, clients and counsellors agree in their perceptions of their alliance, and (2) investigate whether the degree of disagreement between clients and counsellors is related to retention in treatment. Methods - The study recruited 187 clients starting residential rehabilitation treatment for drug misuse in three UK services. Client and counsellor ratings of the therapeutic alliance (using the WAI-S) were obtained during weeks 1-12. Retention was in this study defined as remaining in treatment for at least 12 weeks. Results - Client and counsellor ratings of the alliance were only weakly related (correlations ranging from r = 0.07 to 0.42) and tended to become more dissimilar over the first 12 weeks in treatment. However, whether or not clients and counsellors agreed on the quality of their relationship did not influence whether clients were retained in treatment. Conclusions - The low consensus between client and counsellor views of the alliance found in this and other studies highlights the need for drug counsellors to attend closely to their clients' perceptions of the alliance and to seek regular feedback from clients regarding their feelings about their therapeutic relationship

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

A Study to Validate a Self-Reported Version of the ONS Drug Dependence Questionnaire

Aim: A prospective study to establish the reliability of a self-completion version of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) questionnaire for assessing drug dependence of substance misuse clients. Method: A total of 47 treatment seeking opioid-dependent clients completed the self-complete version of the ONS questionnaire (ONS-sc) followed by the interviewer-administered ONS questionnaire (ONS-ia) at a single clinic appointment. Scores for four Class A drugs (heroin, methadone, speed and crack/cocaine) from both formats were compared. Results: The observed agreement was 87% or more and Cohen's kappa was 0.7 (p < 0.001) or more for all four Class A drugs. Sensitivity for each Class A drugs was 56% or higher and specificity was 87% or higher. Sensitivity for severe heroin dependency was 98% (CI 89–100%). There was a 100% correlation between the ONS-sc and positive urine analysis for heroin use. However, methadone and crack/cocaine drug use appeared under reported. Conclusion: ONS-sc is a feasible, practical and time-saving alternative to a detailed interview on drug dependence. Further research with a larger sample size and non-opiate-dependent clients are needed, as this could prove a useful tool for monitoring clients in everyday practice, or for survey purposes where interviews are impractical

The experience of long-term opiate maintenance treatment and reported barriers to recovery: A qualitative systematic review

Background/Aim: To inform understanding of the experience of long-term opiate maintenance and identify barriers to recovery. Methods: A qualitative systematic review. Results: 14 studies in 17 papers, mainly from the USA (65%), met inclusion criteria, involving 1,088 participants. Studies focused on methadone prescribing. Participants reported stability; however, many disliked methadone. Barriers to full recovery were primarily ‘inward focused'. Conclusion: This is the first review of qualitative literature on long-term maintenance, finding that universal service improvements could be made to address reported barriers to recovery, including involving ex-users as positive role models, and increasing access to psychological support. Treatment policies combining harm minimisation and abstinence-orientated approaches may best support individualised recovery

Homeless drug users' awareness and risk perception of peer "Take Home Naloxone" use – a qualitative study

BACKGROUND Peer use of take home naloxone has the potential to reduce drug related deaths. There appears to be a paucity of research amongst homeless drug users on the topic. This study explores the acceptability and potential risk of peer use of naloxone amongst homeless drug users. From the findings the most feasible model for future treatment provision is suggested. METHODS In depth face-to-face interviews conducted in one primary care centre and two voluntary organisation centres providing services to homeless drug users in a large UK cosmopolitan city. Interviews recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically by framework techniques. RESULTS Homeless people recognise signs of a heroin overdose and many are prepared to take responsibility to give naloxone, providing prior training and support is provided. Previous reports of the theoretical potential for abuse and malicious use may have been overplayed. CONCLUSION There is insufficient evidence to recommend providing "over the counter" take home naloxone" to UK homeless injecting drug users. However a programme of peer use of take home naloxone amongst homeless drug users could be feasible providing prior training is provided. Peer education within a health promotion framework will optimise success as current professionally led health promotion initiatives are failing to have a positive impact amongst homeless drug users

Over 1200 drugs-related deaths and 190,000 opiate-user-years of follow-up : relative risks by sex and age-group

Heroin users/injectors' risk of drugs-related death by sex and current age is weakly estimated both in individual cohorts of under 1000 clients, 5000 person-years or 50 drugs-related deaths and when using cross-sectional data. A workshop in Cambridge analysed six cohorts who were recruited according to a common European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) protocol from drug treatment agencies in Barcelona, Denmark, Dublin, Lisbon, Rome and Vienna in the 1990s; and, as external reference, opiate-user arrestees in France and hepatitis C diagnosed ever-injectors in Scotland in 1993-2001, both followed by database linkage to December 2001. EMCDDA cohorts recorded approximately equal numbers of drugs-related deaths (864) and deaths from other non-HIV causes (865) during 106,152 person-years of follow-up. External cohorts contributed 376 drugs-related deaths (Scotland 195, France 181) and 418 deaths from non-HIV causes (Scotland 221, France 197) during 86,417 person-years of follow-up (Scotland 22,670, France 63,747). EMCDDA cohorts reported 707 drugs-related deaths in 81,367 man-years {8.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI: 8.1 to 9.4} but only 157 in 24,785 person-years for females {6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI: 5.4 to 7.4}. Except in external cohorts, relative risks by current age-group were not particularly strong, and more modest in Poisson regression than in cross-sectional analyses: relative risk was 1.2 (95% CI: 1.0-1.4) for 35-44 year olds compared to 15-24 year 3 olds, but 1.4 for males (95%CI: 1.2-1.6), and dramatically lower at 0.44 after the first year of follow-up (95% CI: 0.37-0.52)

Randomised trials comparing different healthcare settings : an exploratory review of the impact of pre-trial preferences on participation, and discussion of other methodological challenges

BACKGROUND: We recently published a systematic review of different healthcare settings (such as outpatient, community or home) for administering intravenous chemotherapy, and concluded that performing conventionally designed randomised trials was difficult. The main problems were achieving adequate trial accrual rates and recruiting a study population which adequately represented the target population of interest. These issues stemmed from the fact that potential participants may have had pre-trial perceptions about the trial settings they may be allocated; such preferences will sometimes be strong enough for patients to decline an invitation to participate in a trial. A patient preference trial design (in which patients can choose, or be randomised to, an intervention) may have obviated these recruitment issues, although none of the trials used such a design. METHODS: In order to gain a better understanding of the broader prevalence and extent of these preference issues (and any other methodological challenges), we undertook an exploratory review of settings trials in any area of healthcare treatment research. We searched The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar and used snowballing methods to identify trials comparing different healthcare settings. RESULTS: Trial accrual was affected by patient preferences for a setting in 15 of the 16 identified studies; birth setting trials were the most markedly affected, with between 68 % and 85 % of eligible women declining to participate specifically because of preference for a particular healthcare setting. Recruitment into substance abuse and chemotherapy setting studies was also notably affected by preferences. Only four trials used a preference design: the proportion of eligible patients choosing to participate via a preference group ranged from between 33 % and 67 %. CONCLUSIONS: In trials of healthcare settings, accrual may be seriously affected by patient preferences. The use of trial designs which incorporate a preference component should therefore strongly be considered. When designing such trials, investigators should consider settings to be complex interventions, which are likely to have linked components which may be difficult to control for. Careful thought is also needed regarding the choice of comparator settings and the most appropriate outcome measures to be used

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

A follow-up study of heroin addicts (VEdeTTE2): study design and protocol

BACKGROUND: In Italy, a large cohort study (VEdeTTE1) was conducted between 1998–2001 to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in reducing mortality and increasing treatment retention among heroin addicts. The follow-up of this cohort (VEdeTTE2) was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments on long-term outcomes, such as rehabilitation and social re-integration. The purpose of this paper is to describe the protocol of the VEdeTTE2 study, and to present the results of the pilot study carried out to assess the feasibility of the study and to improve study procedures. METHODS: The source population for the VEdeTTE2 study was the VEdeTTE1 cohort, from which a sample of 2,200 patients, traced two or more years after enrolment in the cohort, were asked to participate. An interview investigates drug use; overdose; family and social re-integration. Illegal activity are investigated separately in a questionnaire completed by the patient. Patients are also asked to provide a hair sample to test for heroin and cocaine use. Information on treatments and HIV, HBV and HCV morbidity are obtained from clinical records. A pilot phase was planned and carried out on 60 patients. RESULTS: The results of the pilot phase pointed out the validity of the procedures designed to limit attrition: the number of traced subjects was satisfactory (88%). Moreover, the pilot phase was very useful in identifying possible causes of delays and attrition, and flaws in the instruments. Improvements to the procedures and the instruments were subsequently implemented. Sensitivity of the biological test was quite good for heroin (78%) but lower for cocaine (42.3%), highlighting the need to obtain a hair sample from all patients. CONCLUSION: In drug addiction research, studies investigating health status and social re-integration of subjects at long-term follow-up are lacking. The VEdeTTE2 study aims to investigate these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Results of the pilot phase underline the importance of the pilot phase when planning a follow-up study