• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Drug Alcohol Depend. Author manuscript; available in PMC Sep 1, 2009.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2601705
NIHMSID: NIHMS61452

A COMPARISON OF ONE-YEAR SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT OUTCOMES IN COMMUNITY SYRINGE EXCHANGE PARTICIPANTS VERSUS OTHER REFERRALS

Abstract

This longitudinal cohort study of 324 consecutive admissions to methadone maintenance treatment between 08/1994–09/1997 compared one-year outcomes of opioid-dependent patients referred from a Syringe Exchange Program (SEP; n = 81) versus other sources (n = 243). All participants received stepped-based counseling. The Addiction Severity Index was completed upon admission. Treatment outcomes were assessed using weekly urine testing and days in treatment. GEE regression models were used to evaluate the association between baseline variables and treatment outcomes. SEP referrals were older, included more males and African Americans, reported greater unemployment and heavier heroin, cocaine, and injection drug use at admission. During treatment, SEP referrals used more opioids (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.86–3.56) and cocaine (OR 2.77; 95% CI 1.93–3.95), and were less likely to complete one year (35%) compared to other referrals (56%; Hazard Ratio 1.88; 95% CI 1.35–2.62). Nevertheless, referral source was not significantly associated with outcome when adjusted for baseline characteristics. Greater baseline frequency of substance and injection drug use, and younger age were positively associated with ongoing opioid and cocaine use. African American race and baseline unemployment were also associated with ongoing cocaine use. Younger age and greater baseline cocaine use were associated with poorer retention at one year. The poorer treatment response of SEP referrals is likely due to higher baseline problem severity. Specialized interventions may be required to reduce drug use and improve retention in this population.

Keywords: syringe exchange, treatment, outcomes, methadone substitution

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The balance of available evidence supports the view that community-based syringe exchange programs (SEPs) substantially reduce high-risk syringe sharing behaviors by providing drug users with a readily accessible and medically safe environment to replace used equipment with sterile syringes and related paraphernalia (Bluthenthal et al., 2000; Des Jarlais et al., 1996; Gibson et al., 2001, 2002; National Academy of Sciences, 2006; Wodak & Cooney, 2006; WHO, 2004). While these programs do not appear to be associated with increases in frequencies of drug injection, they also are not related to reductions in drug use (Fisher et al., 2003), and the continuing high rates of injection drug use in this population remain a substantial public health threat. SEP participants report more drug use severity than other populations of treatment-seeking or out-of-treatment opioid users (Brooner et al., 1998; Bruneau et al., 1997; Hahn et al., 1997; Henderson et al, 2003). They also exhibit a high prevalence of Axis I and II psychiatric comorbidity (Brienza et al., 2000; Kidorf et al., 2004), problems that are independently associated with high-risk injection behaviors in drug users (Brooner et al., 1993; Disney et al., 2006). The combination of these factors render this group of people more susceptible to transmission of HIV and other blood-borne diseases despite the notable reductions in use of non-sterile injection equipment associated with participation in syringe exchanges.

Prior studies have clearly documented remarkably low rates of opioid agonist or other current substance abuse treatment involvement in opioid injection drug users participating in community syringe exchange programs (Heimer, 1998; Kidorf et al., 2005). Successful referral of syringe exchange participants to substance abuse treatment has enormous potential to enhance the substantial harm reduction benefits already achieved through participation in SEPs (Heimer, 1998; Metzger and Navaline, 2003; Van Den Berg et al., 2007). Opioid agonist treatment is clearly associated with reduction of both heroin and other drug use (McLellan et al., 2000, WHO 2004) and decreases in injection use and HIV seroconversion (Marsch, 1998; National Academy of Sciences, 2006; Sorensen and Copeland, 2000). The overall acceptability and feasibility of referring SEP participants to opioid agonist treatment has been established in several studies (Hagan et al., 2000; Kidorf and Brooner, 2006; Strathdee et al., 2006) and is now part of routine practice in many SEP sites (Heimer, 1998; Paone et al., 1999). In fact, 86% of the syringe exchange programs in the United States refer participants to substance abuse treatment (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007). Little is known about the clinical response of people referred from SEPs into treatment. This is a particularly relevant question in view of the clinical profile of syringe exchange participants and the negative associations reported between high drug use severity and treatment prognosis. Prior research has shown that greater pre-treatment opioid and other drug use is often associated with poorer overall response to opioid agonist and other substance abuse treatment settings and interventions (Kidorf et al., 1998; Magura et al., 1998; Morral et al., 1999).

Only one study could be found that directly compares the clinical response to opioid agonist treatment in drug users that were or were not participating in a community syringe exchange program prior to referral. Brooner and coauthors (1998) compared syringe exchange participants (n = 82) and other (n = 243) referrals to opioid agonist treatment on baseline drug use and psychiatric characteristics, and short-term (90-day) treatment outcomes. Although SEP participants exhibited greater baseline severity of drug use and more days of injecting and sharing needles, they achieved reductions in drug use that were comparable to those referred from other sources over the first 30 days of treatment. Nevertheless, SEP participants submitted a higher proportion of opioid (49% vs. 29%) and cocaine (54% vs. 32%) positive urine samples, and were less likely to complete 90-days of treatment (76% vs. 88%).

The present study extends these findings by evaluating outcomes from all subjects in the same cohort (Brooner et al., 1998) after one year of treatment. The outcome measures are urinalysis test results (opioid, cocaine, any drug use) and retention. This study also evaluates the association of several baseline variables, in which SEP and other referrals differed at baseline, with eventual treatment outcome. Some of these variables, including drug use severity and employment, have been frequently associated with treatment response in previous studies with other populations of drug users (Kidorf et al., 1998; Magura et al., 1998; Morral et al., 1999; Platt, 1995). This analysis aims to identify factors that are associated with the relatively poorer response to treatment of opioid users referred from a syringe exchange program.

2.0 METHOD

2.1 Participants

Study participants were drawn from 324 consecutive admissions to Addiction Treatment Service (ATS) from August 1994 to September 1997. ATS is a publicly-funded, community-based substance abuse treatment program on the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center campus. Individuals are eligible for admission if they are opioid dependent and meet Center for Substance Abuse Treatment requirements for opioid agonist maintenance (CSAT, 2001). A total of 82 of these admissions were referred by the Baltimore SEP. One individual did not return to the ATS program following the admission day, leaving 81 referrals from the syringe exchange for this set of analyses. This sample was compared to the remaining 243 admissions from other referral sources, referred into treatment by self, family, friends, other health care workers, and social service agencies. Approximately 75%–90% are considered “self-referred”, while the remainder are referred from other health care providers, community-based organizations, or the criminal justice system. Most applicants do not have health insurance and are eligible for the “sliding-fee-schedule” issued by the state of Maryland, reducing the payment obligations to $5.00 per week during the time of the study.

The SEP referral group examined in this analysis represented 52% of the syringe exchangers who were referred to ATS during this time; the remainder (n = 78) did not present for treatment. No significant differences in demographic variables were observed between those who presented and those who did not present to ATS for treatment (Brooner et al., 1998).

Many of the baseline demographic and drug use characteristics of each referral condition were reported by Brooner and colleagues (1998) and are presented in Table 1. The SEP referral admissions were older, more likely male and African-American, and more likely unemployed than the participants from other referral sources. This group also reported more days of heroin use, cocaine use, and injection drug use in the past month at baseline.

TABLE 1
Baseline demographics and drug use self report at admission intake

The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board (IRB) exempted the presentation of these data from IRB review based on US Department of Health and Human Services regulations governing the public presentation of existing clinical data when such information is re-recorded in a manner that eliminates all links to individual patient records and identifiers.

2.2 Substance abuse treatment

All study participants received similar substance abuse treatment service at ATS, which included daily methadone dosing, weekly individual, and group counseling, and referral to other services as needed. Patients were started at 30 mgs of methadone and stabilized at a therapeutic dose (about 70 mgs) by the end of the fourth week of treatment. Counseling services were delivered using a motivated stepped care (MSC) service delivery model (Brooner and Kidorf, 2002; Brooner et al., 2004) that adjusts intensity of care to the patients’ ongoing clinical response to treatment. At the time of this evaluation, the MSC treatment approach included Step 1 (1 individual session per week; 0.5 hours), Step 2 (3–4 hours of individual and group sessions per week), and Step 3 (5–6 hours of individual and group sessions per week). Bachelors-level counselors conducted individual counseling using motivational and cognitive-behavioral techniques to help patients reduce drug use and engage in pro-social and therapeutic behaviors (e.g., finding employment; attending self-help groups). Masters and doctoral level staff led manual-guided relapse prevention, coping skills, and non-manual guided cognitive behavioral therapy groups (Brooner and Kidorf, 2002; Kidorf et al., 2006).

2.3 Study measures

Patients completed the Addiction Severity Index (ASI-5th edition; McLellan et al., 1992) on the day of admission; this included an assessment of days of drug use and injections over the past 30-days. Changes in ASI severity scores over time were reported in our previous report and are not repeated here; self-reported drug use at baseline is used in the present study to predict treatment outcome. Treatment outcome was assessed using urinalysis test results and days of treatment. Patients left a urine specimen one time per week on a random schedule under staff observation. Urine samples were tested for opioids, cocaine, and sedatives.

2.4 Data analyses

General Estimating Equations (GEEs) were used to compare participant outcomes referred from the SEP and other sources on proportion of opiate, cocaine, and any drug-positive urine samples during the 1-year observation period. Results are reported as odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Survival analyses were conducted using the Cox proportional hazards regression, with an “event” defined as leaving treatment and not returning for one month. All others were censored at the end of the year. Results are reported as hazards ratios, with 95% confidence intervals. Finally, GEE was used to examine baseline predictors of opioid and cocaine positive urine samples over the one-year follow-up period, while Cox-proportional hazards regression evaluated predictors of “time to drop-out”. The following baseline variables were used for these analyses: age, gender, race, employment status, days of drug use (heroin and cocaine use over past 30 days), and days of injecting over the past 30 days. Age (≤38 vs. > 38), number of days of heroin use (0–29 vs. 30), days of cocaine use (0–29 vs. 30), and days of injecting (0 vs. 1–30) were coded as dichotomous variables based on the distribution. Each variable was evaluated as an independent predictor (using unadjusted odds or hazards ratios and 95% CI) and entered together with all other variables in the same regression model (using adjusted odds or hazards ratios and 95% CIs). These analyses used all available data without imputing values for missing data. Additional GEE analyses conducted after recoding all missing urinalysis data as drug-positive generated a similar pattern of results and are not presented here.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Comparison of outcomes

3.1.1 Opioid, cocaine, and any drug use

As shown in Table 2, SEP referrals submitted a lower percentage of opioid-negative and cocaine-negative urine samples than other referrals. SEP referrals also submitted a lower percentage of “any drug-negative” urine samples than other referrals.

TABLE 2
Drug use and treatment retention for participants referred from syringe exchange programs compared to participants from all other sources

3.1.2. Treatment retention

Table 2 shows that SEP referrals were less likely to complete both 6 months and one year of treatment in the program.

3.2 Baseline variables associated with treatment outcomes

3.2.1 Opioid and cocaine use

Table 3 examines baseline variables associated with drug use during treatment separately and combined in GEE models. In addition to referral condition, three variables were associated with opioid-negative urine samples while in treatment: less pre-treatment days of opioid use, less pre-treatment days injecting drugs, and employment. When the baseline variables were analyzed together using GEE, days of pre-treatment opioid use and injecting remained significant. Age, greater than 38 years, became significant, while referral condition and employment status were no longer so.

TABLE 3
Baseline variables associated with opioid and cocaine use during treatment

A similar pattern of results was obtained using cocaine-positive urine samples as the dependent measure. Unadjusted analyses showed that white race, employment, referral source other than SEP, less pre-treatment days of cocaine use and days of injecting, were associated with less cocaine use in treatment. Each of these variables, with the exception of referral status, remained significant in an adjusted model. Older age became significant in this analysis.

3.2.2 Treatment retention

In addition to referral status, more pre-treatment days of heroin use, cocaine use, and injecting drug use, and unemployment status, were associated with 6-month attrition (see Table 4). Only pre-treatment days of heroin use and unemployed status remained significant using Cox-proportional hazards regression; referral condition was no longer significantly associated with retention at 6 months when adjusting for these other variables. The same factors associated with 6-month attrition were associated with 12-month attrition. The regression model adjusting for all of these variables, demonstrated that 1) age of less than 38 years and 2) more reported pre-treatment days of cocaine use remained significant predictors of 12-month attrition, with referral condition no longer significant.

TABLE 4
Baseline variables associated with retention at 6 and 12 months of treatment

4.0 DISCUSSION

Participants referred from the SEP experienced significantly worse drug use and retention outcomes than those referred from other sources, but referral condition was not associated with treatment outcome when it was added to a regression model that included other baseline variables. Baseline variables that were strongly associated with study outcomes (i.e., high drug use severity and unemployment) were more prevalent in the SEP referrals than the comparison group. The results add support to the view that SEP’s are enrolling a particularly high-risk population of injection opioid users with a poorer substance abuse treatment prognosis than other samples of treatment-seeking opioid users.

4.1 Poorer treatment outcomes among SEP participants

Differences in drug use and retention outcomes between SEP and other referral sources observed by Brooner and colleagues (1998) following 30 and 90 days of opioid-agonist treatment were magnified over the one-year observation period. These findings suggest that efforts to assist this vulnerable population to enroll in treatment should occur in tandem with efforts to help them benefit from treatment (Kidorf and King, in press). Unremitting drug use, in the context of treatment, places these patients at continued risk for acquisition and transmission of HIV and other blood-borne diseases (Disney et al., 2006; Tyndall et al., 2003), thereby hindering the harm reduction effects of SEP participation. It is possible that syringe exchangers will benefit from interventions designed to provide better transition to the increased structure and demands of opioid-agonist treatments, perhaps by reducing some aspects of the treatment requirements early in the course of care (McCarty et al., 2007). At the very least, injecting drug users referred from the SEP should be encouraged to continue use SEP services until abstinence is attained (McNeely et al., 2006). Van Den Berg et al. (2007) showed that the combination of daily methadone and syringe exchange use was associated with lower risk of HIV infection when compared to either of these interventions alone.

4.2. Drug use severity is associated with worse treatment outcome

Results from the regression analyses suggest that syringe exchangers had poorer outcomes than standard referrals partly because of much higher drug use severity, as measured by rates of drug use and injection behavior at admission to treatment. The relationship between high drug use severity on admission and poor treatment outcome is well-known and often replicated (Ahmadi et al., 2006; Avants et al., 2000; Ciraulo et al., 2003; McKay et al., 2001; Simpson et al., 1999). This pattern of findings provides additional support that SEPs are doing an outstanding job in reaching a subset of drug users with particularly high drug use severity, and that specialized interventions may be needed to help these individuals respond more favorably to treatment. It is possible that SEP participants might benefit from higher methadone doses in the induction phase of treatment; larger doses have been associated with reduced drug use and attrition in other samples of patients (Sees et al., 2000; Strain et al., 1999). More intensive behavioral approaches that provide incentives for reducing drug use, engaging in counseling services, and/or remaining in treatment might also be helpful (Kidorf et al., 2006; Stitzer et al., 2006). A randomized controlled trial of street-recruited injection drug users in Denver showing that higher methadone doses, access to free treatment, more clinic contact and counselor ratings of patient cooperation predicted better treatment retention provides support for these recommendations (Booth et al., 2004).

4.3 Other demographic variables associated with poor treatment outcome

Younger age was associated with poorer outcome, and this finding replicates that of other studies of treatment-seeking opioid users (e.g., Saxon et al., 1996). It might suggest that younger patients may not yet be experiencing the scope or intensity of personal or interpersonal problems that may motivate improved response to treatment. African-Americans had somewhat higher rates of cocaine use, perhaps due to the increased availability of this drug in Baltimore City neighborhoods where the majority of African American ATS clinic attendees reside (Sherman et al., 2005). The relationship between unemployment and poor outcome is supported by other studies (Platt, 1995), although the mechanisms responsible for this relationship, such as financial problems and lack of daily structure, remain speculative (Muller et al., 2005; Silverman and Robles, 1999). What is clear, however, is that unemployment in this population is modifiable, and changes in employment status are associated with better outcomes (Kidorf et al., 1998, 2004).

4.4 Study limitations

The SEP sample was drawn from one northeastern city in the United States, and includes only about half of those individuals initially referred to treatment at ATS, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Syringe exchangers who utilized referral to ATS did not differ in any baseline variables assessed in the present study when compared to syringe exchangers who did not utilize treatment referral (Brooner et al., 1998); however they may have differed in other variables that were not evaluated but may have affected treatment outcome, such as treatment readiness (Henderson et al., 1998). Second, the present study used follow-up data from a study published nearly a decade ago, and variables associated with outcome in this treatment-seeking sample of patients may not generalize to people entering treatment in more recent years. Nevertheless, the baseline variables identified as predictors of drug use and retention in this study have good face validity and dovetail with findings from other samples of treatment-seeking drug users. The findings are relevant due to the lack of previous studies on long-term outcomes of treatment-seeking syringe exchangers and in allaying concerns that the substantial harm reduction efforts of SEPs reduce motivation to seek more demanding treatment (Bluthenthal et al., 2001; Henderson et al., 2003).

A third limitation concerns the sparse distributions of several of the variables within the SEP referral condition. This limited statistical power to detect between-group differences and to test for interactions between referral condition and baseline variables. Still, several of the variables with sparse distributions within the SEP referral condition were statistically significant in GEE models. Finally, the present study relied only on objective measures of outcome (i.e., urinalysis data and retention), and future studies would likely benefit from employing other outcomes, including self-report drug use and problem severities and prior treatment experiences, to provide a more comprehensive assessment of response to substance abuse treatment.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

REFERENCES

  • Ahmadi J, Kampman K, Dackis C. Outcome predictors in cocaine dependence treatment trials. Am J Addict. 2006;15:434–439. [PubMed]
  • Avants SK, Margolin A, Mckee S. A path analysis of cognitive, affective, and behavioral predictors of treatment response in a methadone maintenance program. J Subst Abuse. 2000;11:215–230. [PubMed]
  • Bluthenthal RN, Kral AH, Gee L, Erringer EA, Edlin BR. The effect of syringe exchange use on high-risk injection drug users: a cohort study. AIDS. 2000;14:605–611. [PubMed]
  • Bluthenthal RN, Gogineni A, Longshore D, Stein M. Factors associated with readiness to change drug use among needle-exchange users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2001;62:225–230. [PubMed]
  • Booth RE, Corsi KF, Mikulich-Gilbertson SK. Factors associated with methadone maintenance treatment retention among street-recruited injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;74:177–185. [PubMed]
  • Brienza RS, Stein MD, Chen MH, Gogineni A, Sobota M, Maksad J, Hu P, Clarke J. Depression among needle exchange program and methadone maintenance clients. J Subst Abuse. 2000;18:331–337. [PubMed]
  • Brooner RK, Greenfield L, Schmidt CW, Bigelow GE. Antisocial personality disorder and HIV infection among intravenous drug abusers. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150:53–58. [PubMed]
  • Brooner RK, Kidorf M, King VL, Beilenson P, Svikis D, Vlahov D. Drug abuse treatment success among needle exchange participants. Public Health Rep. 1998;113:129–139. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Brooner RK, Kidorf M. Using behavioral reinforcement to improve methadone treatment participation. Sci Pract Perspect. 2002;1:38–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Brooner RK, Kidorf MS, King VL, Stoller KB, Peirce JM, Bigelow GE, Kolodner K. Behavioral contingencies improve counseling attendance in an adaptive treatment model. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2004;27:223–232. [PubMed]
  • Bruneau J, Lamothe F, Franco E, Lachance N, Desy M, Soto J, Vincelette J. High rates of HIV infection among injection drug users participating in needle exchange programs in Montreal: Results of a cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;146:994–1002. [PubMed]
  • Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Code of Federal Regulations Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2001.
  • Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Syringe exchange programs – United States, 2005. MMWR. 2007;56:1164–1167. [PubMed]
  • Ciraulo DA, Piechniczek-Buczek J, Iscan EN. Outcome predictors in substance use disorders. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2003;26:381–409. [PubMed]
  • Des Jarlais DC, Marmor M, Paone D, Titus S, Shi Q, Perlis T, Jose B, Friedman SR. HIV incidence among injecting drug users in New York City syringe-exchange programmes. Lancet. 1996;348:987–991. [PubMed]
  • Disney E, Kidorf M, Kolodner K, King V, Peirce J, Beilenson P, Brooner RK. Psychiatric comorbidity is associated with drug use and HIV risk in syringe exchange participants. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006;194:577–583. [PubMed]
  • Fisher DG, Fenaughty AM, Cagle HH, Wells RS. Needle exchange and injection drug use frequency: a randomized clinical trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;33:199–205. [PubMed]
  • Gibson DR, Flynn NM, Perales D. Effectiveness of syringe exchange programs in reducing HIV risk behavior and HIV seroconversion among injecting drug users. AIDS. 2001;15:1329–1341. [PubMed]
  • Gibson DR, Brand RS, Anderson K, Kahn JG, Perales D, Guydish J. Two-to sixfold decreased odds of HIV risk behavior associated with use of syringe exchange. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;31:237–242. [PubMed]
  • Hagan H, McGough JP, Thiede H, Hopkins S, Duchin J, Alexander ER. Reduced injection frequency and increased entry and retention in drug treatment associated with needle-exchange participation in Seattle drug injectors. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2000;19:247–252. [PubMed]
  • Hahn JA, Vranizan KM, Moss AR. Who uses needle exchange? A study of injection drug users in treatment in San Francisco, 1989–1990. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1997;15:157–164. [PubMed]
  • Heimer R. Can syringe exchange serve as a conduit to substance abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1998;15:183–191. [PubMed]
  • Henderson LA, Vlahov D, Celentano DD, Strathdee SA. Readiness for cessation of drug use among recent attenders and nonattenders of a needle exchange program. JAIDS. 2003;32:229–237. [PubMed]
  • Kidorf M, Brooner RK, King VL, Stoller KB, Wertz J. Predictive validity of cocaine, sedative, and alcohol dependence diagnoses. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66:168–173. [PubMed]
  • Kidorf M, Disney ER, King VL, Neufeld K, Beilenson PL, Brooner RK. Prevalence of psychiatric and substance use disorders in opioid abusers in a community syringe exchange program. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004;74:115–122. [PubMed]
  • Kidorf M, Disney E, King V, Kolodner K, Beilenson P, Brooner RK. Challenges in motivating treatment enrollment in community syringe exchange participants. J Urban Health. 2005;82:456–467. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Kidorf M, King VL, Brooner RK. Counseling and psychosocial services. In: Strain EC, Stitzer ML, editors. The Treatment of Opioid Dependence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2006. pp. 119–150.
  • Kidorf M, Brooner RK. A Motivational Intervention for Improving Treatment Enrollment in Syringe Exchange Participants. XVI International AIDS Conference.2006.
  • Kidorf M, King VL. Expanding the public health benefits of syringe exchange programs. Can J Psychiatry. in press. [PubMed]
  • Magura S, Nwakeze PC, Demsky S. Pre- and in-treatment predictors of retention in methadone treatment using survival analysis. Addiction. 1998;93:51–60. [PubMed]
  • Marsch LA. The efficacy of methadone maintenance interventions in reducing illicit opiate use, HIV risk behavior and criminality: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 1998;93:515–532. [PubMed]
  • McCarty D, Gustafson DH, Wisdom JP, Ford J, Choi D, Molfenter T, Capoccia V, Cotter F. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx): enhancing access and retention. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;88:138–145. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • McKay JR, Alterman AI, Koppenhaver JM, Mulvaney FD, Bovasso GB, Ward K. Continuous, categorical, and time to event cocaine use outcome variables: degree of intercorrelation and sensitivity to treatment group differences. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2001;62:19–30. [PubMed]
  • McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R, Smith I, Grissom G, Pettinati H, Argeriou M. The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992;9:199–213. [PubMed]
  • McLellan AT, Lewis DC, O'Brien CP, Kleber HD. Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA. 2000;284:1689–1695. [PubMed]
  • McNeely J, Arnsten JH, Gourevitch MN. Improving access to sterile syringes and safe syringe disposal for injection drug users in methadone maintenance treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;31:51–57. [PubMed]
  • Metzger DS, Navaline H. HIV prevention among injection drug users: The need for integrated models. J Urban Health. 2003;80:59–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Morral AR, Belding MA, Iguchi MY. Identifying methadone maintenance clients at risk for poor treatment response: Pretreatment and early progress indicators. Drug and Alcohol Depend. 1999;55:25–33. [PubMed]
  • Muller JJ, Creed PA, Waters LE, Machin MA. The development and preliminary testing of a scale to measure the latent and manifest benefits of employment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2005;21:191–198.
  • National Academy of Sciences (Committee on the Prevention of HIV Infection among Injecting Drug Users in High-Risk Countries) Preventing HIV Infection among Injecting Drug Users in High Risk Countries: An Assessment of the Evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
  • Paone D, Clark J, Shi Q, Purchase D, Des Jarlais DC. Syringe exchange in the United States, 1996: A national profile. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:43–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Platt JJ. Vocational rehabilitation of drug abusers. Psychol Bull. 1995;117:416–433. [PubMed]
  • Saxon AJ, Wells EA, Fleming C, Jackson TR, Calsyn DA. Pre-treatment characteristics, program philosophy and level of ancillary services as predictors of methadone maintenance treatment outcome. Addiction. 1996;91:1197–1209. [PubMed]
  • Sees KL, Delucchi KL, Masson C, Rosen A, Clark HW, Robillard H, Banys P, Hall SM. Methadone maintenance versus 180-day psychosocially enriched detoxification for treatment of opioid dependence: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000;283:1303–1310. [PubMed]
  • Sherman SG, Fuller CM, Shah N, Ompad DV, Vlahov D, Strathdee SA. Correlates of initiation of injection drug use among young drug users in Baltimore, Maryland: the need for early intervention. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2005;37:437–443. [PubMed]
  • Silverman K, Robles E. Employment as a drug abuse treatment intervention: A behavioral economic analysis. In: Chaloupka FJ, Bickel WK, Grossman M, Saffer H, editors. The Economic Analysis of Substance use and Abuse: An Integration of Econometric and Behavioral Economic Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1999. pp. 279–299.
  • Simpson DD, Joe GW, Fletcher BW, Hubbard RL, Anglin MD. A national evaluation of treatment outcomes for cocaine dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:507–514. [PubMed]
  • Sorensen JL, Copeland AL. Drug abuse treatment as an HIV prevention strategy: a review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;59:17–31. [PubMed]
  • Stitzer ML, Petry N, Silverman K. Contingency management therapies. In: Strain EC, Stitzer ML, editors. The Treatment of Opioid Dependence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2006. pp. 151–177.
  • Strain EC, Bigleow GE, Liebson IA, Stitzer ML. Moderate- vs high-dose methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence. JAMA. 1999;281:1000–1005. [PubMed]
  • Strathdee SA, Ricketts EP, Huettner S, Cornelius L, Bishai D, Havens JR, Beilenson P, Rapp C, Lloyd JJ, Latkin CA. Facilitating entry into drug treatment among injection drug users referred from a needle exchange program: Results from a community-based behavioral intervention trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;83:225–232. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Tyndall MW, Currie S, Spittal P, Li K, Wood E, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT. Intensive injection cocaine use as the primary risk factor in the Vancouver HIV-1 epidemic. AIDS. 2003;17:887–893. [PubMed]
  • Van Den Berg C, Smit C, Van Brussel G, Coutinho R, Rins M. Full participation in harm reduction programmes is associated with decreased risk for human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus: evidence from the Amsterdam cohort studies among drug users. Addiction. 2007;102:1454–1462. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Wodak A, Cooney A. Do needle syringe programs reduce HIV infection among injecting drug users: a comprehensive review of the international evidence. Substance Use & Misuse. 2006;41:777–813. [PubMed]
  • World Health Organization. Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programming in reducing HIV/AIDS among injecting drug users. (Evidence for action technical papers) Geneva, Switzerland: 2004.
PubReader format: click here to try

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • MedGen
    MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...