4.6 Article

Mortality in a cohort of opiate and amphetamine users in Perth,Western Australia

期刊

ADDICTION
卷 99, 期 1, 页码 53-60

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00602.x

关键词

amphetamine; mortality; opiate; record linkage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims This study compares the hazard of death among opiate and amphetamine using clients who accessed drug treatment with individuals who had no specialist treatment contact between 1985 and 1998. Design, setting, participants This was a retrospective cohort study of 4280 drug-using individuals (2 8 8 7 opiate users, 13 9 3 amphetamine users) admitted to Perth metropolitan hospitals or Perth psychiatric institutions between 19 8 5 and 1998. Of these, 1469 attended Next Step Specialist Drug and Alcohol Services (928 received methadone and 541 attended counselling or support groups) and 2 8 11 had no contact with this service. Methods Data from two drug treatment programmes were linked with hospital morbidity, psychiatric services and the mortality database using record linkage. Findings The results show that people who were currently in drug treatment had a lower hazard of death compared with non-clients and those who had ceased treatment. Those who had ceased treatment more than 6 months ago had 7.0 times the hazard of all-cause death and 8.4 times the hazard of drug-cause death. Opiate users were at 1.4 times the hazard of all-cause death and 2.4 times the hazard of drug-cause death compared with amphetamine users. Males were at 1.79 times the hazard of all-cause death and, unexpectedly, were found to be at 2.69 times the hazard of drug-cause death compared with females. Conclusions Treatment protected clients from premature death compared with people who did not receive treatment and also those who ceased treatment. While amphetamine users had a lower risk of mortality compared with opiate users, the full extent of the relationship between amphetamine use and mortality needs to be examined further.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据