Cited by 175Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Outcomes after methadone maintenance and methadone reduction treatments: two-year follow-up results from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study

Gossop, Michael, Marsden, John, Stewart, Duncan, Treacy, Samantha·2001·Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Abstract

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the 2-year outcomes for 351 drug misusers allocated on an intention-to-treat basis to methadone maintenance or methadone reduction treatments. Both groups showed substantial reductions in their use of illicit drugs and in other outcome areas. However, whereas most methadone maintenance patients received maintenance, only about one third of those allocated to methadone reduction received methadone reduction, and many actually received a form of methadone maintenance. Reduction patients were more likely to receive low doses of methadone, and were less likely to remain in treatment. For maintenance patients, higher doses and retention in treatment were both associated with improvements in illicit heroin use at 2 years. For the reduction patients, the more rapidly the methadone was reduced, the worse the heroin use outcomes. For patients in both treatment conditions, reductions in heroin use were associated with improvements in other outcome areas. The more severely dependent patients showed better outcomes in methadone maintenance. Methadone reduction treatment processes were associated with poor outcomes, and many patients who were allocated to methadone reduction treatment did not receive reduction treatment as intended. This calls into question the appropriateness of either the initial treatment planning process or the treatment delivery process, or both. A clearer distinction should be made between methadone maintenance and methadone reduction. Treatment goals should be made explicit both to the patient and to the clinical staff at the start of treatment. We suggest the need for a reappraisal of the goals and procedures of methadone reduction treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0376-8716(00)00211-8

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gossop, M., Marsden, J., Stewart, D., & Treacy, S.
Corresponding author
Gossop, Michael
Venue
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-05-01
Volume
62
Issue
3
Pages
255-264
ISSN
0376-8716 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003855549
Cited by
175
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
10.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Drug and Alcohol Dependence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Pennsylvania
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
methadone maintenance treatment, opioid use disorder, heroin use, treatment retention, treatment dose, treatment planning, drug abuse, treatment outcomes
MeSH terms
Follow-Up Studies, Heroin Dependence, Humans, Methadone, Narcotics, Chi-Square Distribution, Logistic Models, Substance Abuse Treatment Centers, Treatment Outcome, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review