Cited by 57Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Improving substance abuse treatment enrollment in community syringe exchangers

Kidorf, Michael, King, Van L., Neufeld, Karin, Peirce, Jessica, Kolodner, Ken, Brooner, Robert K.·2009·Addiction

Abstract

Aims The present study evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention combining motivational enhancement and treatment readiness groups, with and without monetary incentives for attendance and treatment enrollment, on enhancing rates of substance abuse treatment entry among new registrants at the Baltimore Needle Exchange Program (BNEP). Design Opioid‐dependent study participants (n = 281) referred by the BNEP were assigned randomly to one of three referral interventions: (i) eight individual motivational enhancement sessions and 16 treatment readiness group sessions (motivated referral condition—MRC); (ii) the MRC intervention with monetary incentives for attending sessions and enrolling in treatment—MRC+I); or (iii) a standard referral condition which directed participants back to the BNEP for referral (standard referral—SRC). Participants were followed for 4 months. Findings MRC+I participants were more likely to enroll in any type of treatment than MRC or SRC participants (52.1% versus 31.9% versus 35.5%; χ 2 = 9.12, P = 0.01), and more likely to enroll in treatment including methadone than MRC or SRC participants (40.4% versus 20.2% versus 16.1%; χ 2 = 16.65, P < 0.001). MRC+I participants also reported less heroin and injection use than MRC and SRC participants. Conclusions Syringe exchange sites can be effective platforms to motivate opioid users to enroll in substance abuse treatment and ultimately reduce drug use and number of drug injections.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02560.x

Cites

39 of 39 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 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kidorf, M., King, V. L., Neufeld, K., Peirce, J., Kolodner, K., & Brooner, R. K.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Kidorf, Michael
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-07
Volume
104
Issue
5
Pages
786-795
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2079086095
Cited by
57
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA12347-04, R01DA012347)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
needle exchange programs, opioid use disorder, motivation enhancement, financial incentives, methadone, heroin use, intravenous drug use
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Opioid-Related Disorders, Reward, Baltimore, Substance Abuse, Intravenous, Substance Abuse Treatment Centers, Needle-Exchange Programs, Harm Reduction, Drug Users

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