4.4 Article

Buprenorphine and methadone maintenance in jail and post-release: A randomized clinical trial

期刊

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
卷 99, 期 1-3, 页码 222-230

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.08.006

关键词

Buprenorphine treatment; Methadone treatment; Prisoners; Substance abuse treatment; Jail

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [R21 DA020583]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R21DA020583] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Buprenorphine has rarely been administered as an opioid agonist maintenance therapy in a correctional setting. This study introduced buprenorphine maintenance in a large urban jail, Rikers Island in New York City. Hero in-dependent men not enrolled in community methadone treatment and sentenced to 10-90 days in jail (N=116) were voluntarily randomly assigned either to buprenorphine or methadone maintenance, the latter being the standard of care for eligible inmates at Rikers. Boprenorphine and methadone maintenance completion rates in jail were equally high, but the buprenorphine group reported for their designated post-release treatment in the community significantly more often than did the methadone group (48% vs. 14%, p<.001). Consistent with this result, prior to release from Rikers, buprenorphine patients stated an intention to continue treatment after release more often than did methadone patients (93% vs. 44%, p<.001). Buprenorphine patients were also less likely than methadone patients to withdraw voluntarily from medication while in jail (3% vs. 16%, p<.05). There were no post-release differences between the buprenorphine and methadone groups in self-reported relapse to illicit opioid use, self-reported re-arrests, self-reported severity of crime or re-incarceration in jail. After initiating opioid agonist treatment in jail, continuing buprenorphine maintenance in the community appears to be more acceptable to offenders than continuing methadone maintenance. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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