Invitation to comment

This blog is for researchers, providers, users, community groups, policy makers, and others who are interested in reframing America's response to drug use using the approach exemplified by the 2nd National Conference. The conference is designed to be the "table" where the stakeholders and those most affected by methamphetamine can come together to create solutions that are based in science and compassion. We invite law enforcement and criminal justice professionals as well as treatment providers and harm reductionists because they all have a role to play, and by working together, we hope to reduce the harms associated with drug use and the harms associated with bad drug policy. We invite you to comment and send us news and information to post. Weclome to the table!

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Treatment response by primary drug of abuse: Does methamphetamine make a difference?
doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.06.007

Bill Luchansky Ph.D., Antoinette Krupski Ph.D. and Kenneth Stark M.B.A
Abstract

The purposes of this study were to examine the outcomes of a sample of patients receiving publicly funded substance abuse treatment in Washington State and to compare the outcomes of those using methamphetamine (MA) with patients using other drugs of abuse. All data for this study came from administrative systems in Washington State, and the outcomes included completion of and readmission to treatment, employment, and various forms of criminal justice involvement. Treatment records were linked to outcome data using both deterministic and probabilistic matching techniques. Patients were tracked for 1 year following their discharge, and analyses were performed separately on a study population of adults and a study population of youth. For both adults and youth, the results showed that across outcomes, there were few differences between MA users and users of other hard drugs, whereas there were consistent differences between MA users and users of alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol and marijuana users tended to have more positive outcomes than the other groups. Future research should focus on more detailed analyses of the type of treatment received by patients, particularly for MA users.

No comments: