Drug and alcohol dependence · 2009
Interim methadone treatment: impact on arrests.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schwartz Robert P, Jaffe Jerome H, O'Grady Kevin E, Kinlock Timothy W, Gordon Michael S, Kelly Sharon M, Wilson Monique E, Ahmed Ashraf
Аннотация
AIMS: This study examines the frequency and severity of arrest charges among heroin addicts randomly assigned to either interim methadone (IM) maintenance or to remain on a waiting list for methadone treatment. It was hypothesized that IM participants would have a: (1) lower number of arrests at 6 and 12 months and (2) lower mean crime severity scores at 6 and 12 months post-baseline.
METHODS: Available official arrest data were obtained for all 319 study participants for a period of 2 years before and after study enrollment. Crime severity ratings of charges were made using an established measure of crime severity.
FINDINGS: Participants randomly assigned to IM as compared to those on a waiting list had a significant reduction in number of arrests at 6 but not at 12 months from study enrollment. There were no significant differences in whether participants were arrested for a more severe crime but frequency of severe crime was relatively low in both groups. Additional post hoc analyses based on whether participants were in methadone treatment at 4 and 10 months after original random assignment to treatment condition revealed that those participants not in treatment at these follow-up assessment points were significantly more likely to be arrested and to have a higher mean crime severity rating at 12 and 24 months post-baseline assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: IM as compared to the waiting list condition, had a significant reduction in number of officially recorded arrests from baseline to 6 months post-baseline. Those who were enrolled in methadone treatment at the 4- and 10-month follow-up assessment, regardless of initial assignment, had fewer arrests at 12 and 24 months post-baseline.
METHODS: Available official arrest data were obtained for all 319 study participants for a period of 2 years before and after study enrollment. Crime severity ratings of charges were made using an established measure of crime severity.
FINDINGS: Participants randomly assigned to IM as compared to those on a waiting list had a significant reduction in number of arrests at 6 but not at 12 months from study enrollment. There were no significant differences in whether participants were arrested for a more severe crime but frequency of severe crime was relatively low in both groups. Additional post hoc analyses based on whether participants were in methadone treatment at 4 and 10 months after original random assignment to treatment condition revealed that those participants not in treatment at these follow-up assessment points were significantly more likely to be arrested and to have a higher mean crime severity rating at 12 and 24 months post-baseline assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: IM as compared to the waiting list condition, had a significant reduction in number of officially recorded arrests from baseline to 6 months post-baseline. Those who were enrolled in methadone treatment at the 4- and 10-month follow-up assessment, regardless of initial assignment, had fewer arrests at 12 and 24 months post-baseline.