Cited by 147Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Evaluating the impact of community‐based treatment options on methamphetamine use: findings from the M ethamphetamine T reatment E valuation S tudy (MATES)

Open access
McKetin, Rebecca, Najman, Jake M., Baker, Amanda L., Lubman, Dan I., Dawe, Sharon, Ali, Robert, Lee, Nicole K., Mattick, Richard P. +1 more·2012·Addiction

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the impact of community‐based drug treatment on methamphetamine use using inverse probability of treatment‐weighted (IPTW) estimators to derive treatment effects. Design: A longitudinal prospective cohort study with follow‐ups at 3 months, 1 year and 3 years. Treatment effects were derived by comparing groups at follow‐up. IPTW estimators were used to adjust for pre‐treatment differences between groups. Setting: S ydney and B risbane, A ustralia. Participants: Participants were methamphetamine users entering community‐based detoxification (n = 112) or residential rehabilitation (n = 248) services and a quasi‐control group of methamphetamine users (n = 101) recruited from the community. Measurements: Frequency of methamphetamine use between interviews (no use, less than weekly, 1–2 days per week, 3+ days per week), continuous abstinence from methamphetamine use, past month methamphetamine use and methamphetamine dependence. Findings: Detoxification did not reduce methamphetamine use at any follow‐up relative to the quasi‐control group. Relative to quasi‐control and detoxification groups combined, residential rehabilitation produced large reductions in the frequency of methamphetamine use at 3 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15–0.36, P < 0.001), with a marked attenuation of this effect at 1 year (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40–0.97, P = 0.038) and 3 years (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.42–1.19, P = 0.189). The greatest impact was for abstinence: for every 100 residential rehabilitation clients there was a gain of 33 being continuously abstinent at 3 months, with this falling to 14 at 1 year and 6 at 3 years. Conclusions: Community‐based residential rehabilitation may produce a time‐limited decrease in methamphetamine use, while detoxification alone does not appear to do so.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03933.x

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Other clinically available treatments for methamphetamine dependence, including long-stay residential rehabilitation, carry substantial constraints related to access, cost, and scalability.

    “other clinically available treatments, including long-stay residential rehabilitation, carry substantial constraints related to access, cost, and scalability (7)”

    From Psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for methamphetamine dependence: a case report involving daily methamphetamine use (2024) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes residential rehabilitation as having expensive running costs and questions whether its time-limited benefits outweigh them. The Participants and procedure section describes longer residential stays, but the paper does not establish constraints on access or scalability. It also does not extend those constraints to other clinically available treatments. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Residential rehabilitation has significant cost, accessibility and acceptability constraints, with minimal impact on longer-term outcomes.

    “Residential rehabilitation has significant cost, accessibility and acceptability constraints, with minimal impact on longer-term outcomes [11].”

    From Psilocybin‐assisted psychotherapy for methamphetamine use disorder: A pilot open‐label safety and feasibility study. (2025) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Discussion reports expensive running costs and a large but time-limited reduction in methamphetamine use; the Conclusion finds no clear benefit at three years. Our copy does not establish accessibility or acceptability constraints, and the longer-term finding concerns methamphetamine use in this study rather than outcomes generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [19]19. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services National Minimum Data Set 2011-12 Specifications and collection manual. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2011:1-183.
  2. [29]29. Cartwright WS. Cost-benefit analysis of drug treatment services: review of the literature. Journal of mental health Policy and Economics. 2000;3:11-26.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McKetin, R., Najman, J. M., Baker, A. L., Lubman, D. I., Dawe, S., Ali, R., Lee, N. K., Mattick, R. P., & Mamun, A.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Eastern Health (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
McKetin, Rebecca
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-07-12
Volume
107
Issue
11
Pages
1998-2008
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W1924347018
Cited by
147
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • University of New South Wales
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre
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
methamphetamine use, community-based drug treatment, residential rehabilitation, detoxification, treatment effects, abstinence, methamphetamine dependence, addiction treatment, inverse probability of treatment weighting
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Methamphetamine, Recurrence, Residential Treatment, Case-Control Studies, Treatment Outcome, Amphetamine-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