The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Outcomes after methadone maintenance and methadone reduction treatments: two-year follow-up results from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Maintenance therapy enables clients to manage withdrawal effects and reduces craving by providing a substitute and is empirically supported (Gossop et al., 2001).”
From “I don’t want to take buprenorphine for the rest of my life”: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for a Client Struggling to Reduce Low-Dose Buprenorphine (a Hermeneutic Single-Case Efficacy Design) (2023) · cites this paper as Gossop et al., 2001
Citations
Cites
Drug Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness
Hubbard, R. L., Marsden, M. E., Rachal, J. V., Harwood, H. J., Cavanaugh, E. R., & Ginzburg, H. M. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,028
The Effectiveness of Methadone Maintenance Treatment: Patients, Programs, Services, and Outcome
Ball, J. C., & Ross, A. O. (1991) · Cited by 903
Marsch, L. A. (1998) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.9345157.x · Cited by 554
Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS).
Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., & Brown, B. S. (1997) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/0893-164x.11.4.294 · Cited by 514
The Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP): a brief instrument for assessing treatment outcome
Marsden, J., Gossop, M., Stewart, D., Best, D. W., Farrell, M., Lehmann, P., Edwards, C., & Strang, J. (1998) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.9312185711.x · Cited by 487
Self-citationSees, K. L., Delucchi, K. L., Masson, C., Rosen, A., Clark, H. W., Robillard, H., Banys, P., & Hall, S. M. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.10.1303 · Cited by 415 · cited 2×
“The finding of lower retention rates among the MRT patients is consistent with the results of the randomised controlled trial conducted by Sees et al. (2000) which found that patients receiving 180 day detoxification were less likely to remain in treatment than patients receiving maintenance.”
BackgroundResultFortnightly Review: Methadone maintenance treatment in opiate dependence: a review
Farrell, M., Ward, J., Mattick, R. P., Hall, W., Stimson, G. V., Jarlais, D. D., Gossop, M., & Strang, J. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6960.997 · Cited by 393
Self-citationProgram diversity and treatment retention rates in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS).
Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., Broome, K. M., Hiller, M. L., Knight, K. K., & Rowan‐Szal, G. A. (1997) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/0893-164x.11.4.279 · Cited by 270
Mclellan, A., Woody, G. E., Metzger, D. S., McKay, J. R., Durell, J., Alterman, A., & O'Brien, C. (1996) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3350433 · Cited by 258
Barker, J. C., & Enoch, M. D. (1964) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5391.1183-c · Cited by 257
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, J. R. M., & Clausen, T. (2010) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-13 · Cited by 909
“Since then several studies have found that abstinenceoriented treatment in OMT is less effective than longterm maintenance [33,34].”
BackgroundLinehan, M. M., Dimeff, L. A., Reynolds, S. K., Comtois, K. A., Welch, S. S., Heagerty, P., & Kivlahan, D. R. (2002) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00011-x · Cited by 741
“We decided to use a high maintenance dose given the treatment outcome literature suggesting superior outcomes with use of high doses as compared with low-to-moderate doses (Gossop et al., 2001).”
MethodConnock, M., Juarez-Garcia, A., Jowett, S., Frew, E., Liu, Z., Taylor, R., Fry-Smith, A., Day, E., Lintzeris, N., Roberts, T. E., et al. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11090 · Cited by 610
“(1058) 6 heroin dependence/ or opiate addiction/ (5197) 7 WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME/ (8466) 8 SUBSTANCE ABUSE/ (13,158) 9 or/2-8 (29,623) 10 1 and 9 (3802) 11 decision support techniques/ (479) 12 markov.”
Amato, L., Davoli, M., A.Perucci, C., Ferri, M., Faggiano, F., & P. Mattick, R. (2005) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2005.02.007 · Cited by 567
“Methadone maintenance treatments (MMT) versus methadone detoxification treatments (MDT): 3 studies (Gossop et al., 2001; Newman & Whitehill, 1979; Vanichseni, Wongsuwan, The Staff of BMA Narcotics Clinic No. 6, Choopanya, & Wongpanich, 1991), 691 participants; !”
BackgroundMethadone maintenance at different dosages for opioid dependence
Faggiano, F., Vigna‐Taglianti, F., Versino, E., & Lemma, P. (2003) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002208 · Cited by 414
Metadata
- 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
