Category: Methadone treatment

Do talking treatments help problem drinkers who also use illicit drugs? We’re still guessing – by Sarah Chapman

19 Nov 2012

Do talking treatments help problem drinkers who also use illicit drugs? We’re still guessing

shutterstock_98318528

Alcohol Awareness Week starts today, with the theme ‘It’s time to talk about drinking’, so I thought we’d kick-start the week in this bit of the woodland by doing just that. Alcohol Concern’s Hair of the Dog campaign poster displays facts which may well achieve their aim of prompting conversation on this subject, including the surprising information that around 200,000 people will have turned up to work with a hangover today (and people who work are more likely to drink alcohol than unemployed people).
Talking treatments were the focus for a new Cochrane review, published last week, which looked at different psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in people with problem alcohol and drug use. Four studies with 594 people were included, comparing cognitive-behavioural coping skills training with 12-step facilitation, a brief intervention with treatment as usual, motivational interviewing with hepatitis health promotion and brief motivational interviewing with assessment only.
Here’s what they found:
  • The only study finding a significant difference found that people in the control group receiving ‘treatment as usual’ drank less alcohol at three and nine months than those receiving a brief intervention.
  • The evidence is weak, coming from low quality studies
  • Studies differed too much for their results to be combined
I was rather surprised to read a positive result favouring the control group, until I discovered that the only additional intervention for the intervention group was a single one-hour talking session. Otherwise, everyone in the trial received ‘treatment as usual’ which included a barrage of things including drugs, medical and psychiatric follow-up AND, wait for it, psychosocial interventions…
The reviewers, not surprisingly, said that
 no conclusion can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.
So targeting drug and alcohol use together may be a logical approach, given the high rate of these problems occuring together, but one that still lacks an evidence base. If you want to talk about drinking this week, check-out the drinkaware website for some facts about alcohol and you could use the MyDrinkaware feature to track or cut down your drinking. I’m off now to grab a glass of water, something I definitely don’t drink enough.

Links:

Klimas J, Field CA, Cullen W, O’Gorman CSM, Glynn LG, Keenan E, Saunders J, Bury G, Dunne C. Psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in concurrent problem alcohol and illicit drug users. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD009269. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009269.pub2. Cochrane summary 

Sarah Chapman

My name is Sarah Chapman. I have worked on systematic reviews and other types of research in many areas of health for the past 17 years, for the Cochrane Collaboration and for several UK higher education institutions including the University of Oxford and the Royal College of Nursing Institute. I also have a background in nursing and in the study of the History of Medicine.

Read the full article here

Retention versus continuity of care?

Retention in treatment has been traditionally regarded as a key outcome measure of addiction treatment. Thinking about this indicator brings us to fundamental questions of what a success in treatment is and how it can be measured.
The longer drug users stay in treatment, the higher their chances of success. Their health improves; they commit less crime and have more stable daily routine. Early identification and treatment of drug problems is also associated with better outcomes. NIATx, for instance, is an easy to use model of process improvement designed specifically for behavioral health. It helps substance abuse and mental health treatment organizations improve user access to and retention in treatment, defined as “attendance at the second, third, or fourth outpatient treatment sessions”. Others regard 12-month retention in care as success.
Rowdy Yates said, at the INEF conference in Dublin, 2011 that drug users seeking treatment want to give up drugs and what they get from us? Methadone [a replacement opioid]. This statement reflects the inability of many treatment systems to offer a menu of options and tailor them to individual needs of drug users. Medicating drug problem is one of the solutions that work for a large population of treatment seekers. Other options should be offered too.
Dr Okruhlica, in Slovakia, agrees with the diagnosis of addiction by the International Classification of Disorders (ICD) or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual DSM. This definition lists several symptoms of addiction. If somebody has certain number of these symptoms, they receive the diagnosis. If the person doesn’t have symptoms for a year, they cannot be regarded as ill any longer. Harm reduction experts believe that while the medical diagnosis of addiction could be helpful in understanding the problem, even the most dependent users have control over their drug use and choice plays an important role in their life. Dr Zinbergwas a pioneer of this approach with his monograph The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. Studies on uncontrolled drug use followed. These views are regarded as extreme by many. Their believability is further undermined by the fact that non-problem drug users live in anonymity. For example, very few scientific studies manage to engage with non-problematic heroin users.
On the other hand, the recovery-oriented movements, especially AA, maintain that once a person “gets” addiction, they will become ill forever. This opinion can be very helpful for people in treatment, but can actually harm people out of treatment. Ex-users seeking re-integration into job markets are viewed as irresponsible and incapable of holding jobs for long time – result of a society stigmatization.
Because retention in treatment, as a robust outcome indicator, is highly esteemed in the drug addiction field, most professionals working in the addiction are able to place them somewhere on the continuum delineated by the two extremes – illness for life vs. uncontrolled drug use. See figure 1 below.
Figure 1 Continuum of opinions
Alongside the controversy around medicalization of drug use runs another debate about language. For many, language doesn’t matter too much and is a matter of political correctness. Opposite to them, I would like to hope, stand the language-believers. For them, the words we use shape and influence the world we live in. If we call drug users “junkies” they will become “junkies” – whatever that word represents to those who use it. Similarly, the term retention could be too close to detention; people are not kept in treatment to help them regain life, but to help sustain the treatment centre. Just like in the prison, where the inmates have little control over their length of stay, the people detained or retained in treatment have little control over length of their treatment. Opponents of the word retention propose continuity of care as an alternative, more humane, term to describe this golden-standard treatment outcome indicator. For them, it incorporates also the individual willingness to receivecare. But, are patients aware of it? I ask.

Language shapes and influences the drug treatment systems that we study or work for. It is important to recognize that even though retention and continuity of care could be the same thing – looked at from different angles – we have to choose the words we use in treatment carefully and make sure people who use our services are aware of it.

Fidelity questions

Clinical trials use elaborate methods to make sure that everybody does the exact thing as they planned. Measuring treatment fidelity is checking the agreement between study plan and practice. Some health problems require complex changes. How to measure fidelity in trials of complex interventions? Here are some ideas for fidelity checking.

The National Institutes of Health established a workgroup for treatment fidelity, as part of their behaviour change consortium (1999). They surveyed each centre in the consortium to find out which fidelity measures they use in trials. The workgroup recommendations span five areas: study design, training providers, delivery of treatment, receipt of treatment and enactment of treatment skills. They are useful for investigators who want to measure and improve their treatment fidelity. The key areas for our study are design, training, delivery and receipt.

Fidelity in our PINTA study

Our feasibility study has several aims. The first is to estimate parameters for a fully powered clinical trial. Secondly, we also want to know whether our intervention works. As a complex intervention, it targets multiple levels – doctor and patient level. We hope to improve doctors’ practices and patients’ health behaviour. Intervention fidelity in a multi-level study means adhering to different guidelines and processes. Our trainers must deliver uniform training to all learners groups. The doctors must provide consistent interventions to all patients in the intervention group.

Availability of personal portable audio recorders, e.g. smartphones, provides new and exciting opportunities for fidelity checking, but it raises some ethical issues. Doctors and other interventionists can easily record their consultations with patients and email them to researchers for fidelity checking, but email is not safe.

To avoid the potential confidentiality breach, the researchers can ring the doctors, give them a one-sentence brief and ask them what would they respond should this patient appear in their next appointment. Recording such phone calls is not a technical or ethical problem; it is not without limitations, though. Telephonic consultation with researcher in the role of patient does not reflect real life consultations and, as such, cannot be an accurate skills check. Doctors may not want to be called and recorded for quality assurance purposes, even if it’s anonymous and does not affect their income or professional standing.

When designing measures to improve treatment fidelity in our study, we have to consider how they will be perceived by our participants and providers. These are the strategies for monitoring and improving treatment fidelity that we plan to use:

Design:

  • Guidelines for primary care providers to manage problem alcohol use among problem drug users
  • Scripted curriculum for the group training of providers

Training:

  • Booster session (practice visits) to prevent drift in provider skills
  • Access of providers to research staff for questions about the intervention
Delivery:

  • Instructional video of patient–doctor interaction to standardize the delivery
  • Cards with examples of standard drinks and scripted responses – to standardize the delivery
  • Question about patient scenario in follow-up questionnaires (telephone contact)
Receipt:

  • SBIRT checklist for providers (process measure)
  • Pre- and post training test (knowledge measure)
  • Patient follow-up questionnaire will check whether each component of the intervention was delivered

Measuring fidelity in trials of complex interventions is important. It is not technically demanding. Ultimately this becomes a question of personal development and credibility – willingness to have one’s skills analysed and improved is the basis of reflective practice.

What agonist patients think about alcohol #SBIRT? A new paper out now

What do patients attending family physicians for methadone treatment think of screening and brief interventions for alcohol problems? Except for being screened at the intake, few recalled routine screening or treatment, and felt that primary care staff should be more proactive when addressing excessive drinking.
Check out our new qualitative study (www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/14/98/abstract)

INVEST-ing: Jan Klimas teams up with US university

NIDA CTN WSN

Jan Klimas, PhD, joins the Western States Node on March 1, 2013, as a NIDA CTN INVEST Fellow.  NIDA is the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and INVEST is International Visiting Scientists & Technical Exchange Program for drug abuse research. Oregon Health & Sciences University hosts Dr. Klimas’ six months fellowship during which he will assess the use of Screening and Brief Intervention (SBIRT) for alcohol use disorders among patients receiving agonist medication for opioid use disorders. 

Professor Dennis McCarty, Co-PI for the Western States Node, will supervise Dr. Klimas during his fellowship.  The research examines addiction treatment in primary and specialty care settings with respect to implementation of screening and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use among opioid-dependent patients in methadone or buprenorphine agonist treatment in Ireland and Oregon.  Dr. Klimas’ prior work in Ireland informs the U.S. investigation… Read more in the NIDA CTN bulletin, issue November 15th, 2012: (http://ctndisseminationlibrary.org/bulletin/20121115.pdf