Jessica F Magidson1, Hetta Gouse2, Warren Burnhams3, Christie Y Y Wu4, Bronwyn Myers5, John A Joska2, Adam W Carrico6. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), 1 Bowdoin Square, 7(th) Floor, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck St, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: Jmagidson@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. HIV Mental Health Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block Groote Schuur Hospital, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town 7925, South Africa. 3. City of Cape Town City Health, PO Box 2815, Cape Town 8000, South Africa. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), 1 Bowdoin Square, 7(th) Floor, Boston, MA 02114, USA. 5. Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Francie Van Zijl Dr, Parow Valley, Cape Town 7501, South Africa; Division of Addiction Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block Groote Schuur Hospital, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town 7925, South Africa. 6. University of Miami School of Medicine, Department of Public Health Sciences, 1120 NW 14(th) St., Miami, FL 33136, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Matrix model of substance use treatment has been evaluated extensively in the United States as an effective treatment for methamphetamine use disorders. Since 2007, the Matrix model has been implemented in Cape Town, South Africa, where one in four treatment-seeking individuals are primarily opioid rather than stimulant users. Yet, there has been limited data on the application of the Matrix model for other types of substance use disorders in a resource-limited setting. METHODS: We compared primary opioid and primary methamphetamine users seeking treatment at the first certified Matrix model substance use treatment site in Cape Town, South Africa from 2009 to 2014 (n=1863) on engagement in treatment, an important early predictor of later substance use treatment outcomes, and urine-verified abstinence at treatment exit. RESULTS: Compared to primary opioid users, primary methamphetamine users had over 50% greater odds of initiating treatment (defined as attending at least one treatment session following intake; OR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.24-1.94), and 4.5 times greater odds of engaging in treatment (i.e., attending at least four treatment sessions; OR=4.48; 95%CI: 2.27-8.84). There were no significant differences in rates of urine-verified abstinence at treatment exit. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest primary opioid users may experience additional barriers to treatment initiation and engagement in the Matrix model of substance use treatment, yet those who enter treatment are equally as likely to be abstinent at treatment exit compared to primary methamphetamine users. Findings highlight the need for additional strategies to optimize treatment initiation and engagement among primary opioid users in this setting, for instance by integrating medication-assisted treatment (e.g., methadone).
INTRODUCTION: The Matrix model of substance use treatment has been evaluated extensively in the United States as an effective treatment for methamphetamine use disorders. Since 2007, the Matrix model has been implemented in Cape Town, South Africa, where one in four treatment-seeking individuals are primarily opioid rather than stimulant users. Yet, there has been limited data on the application of the Matrix model for other types of substance use disorders in a resource-limited setting. METHODS: We compared primary opioid and primary methamphetamine users seeking treatment at the first certified Matrix model substance use treatment site in Cape Town, South Africa from 2009 to 2014 (n=1863) on engagement in treatment, an important early predictor of later substance use treatment outcomes, and urine-verified abstinence at treatment exit. RESULTS: Compared to primary opioid users, primary methamphetamine users had over 50% greater odds of initiating treatment (defined as attending at least one treatment session following intake; OR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.24-1.94), and 4.5 times greater odds of engaging in treatment (i.e., attending at least four treatment sessions; OR=4.48; 95%CI: 2.27-8.84). There were no significant differences in rates of urine-verified abstinence at treatment exit. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest primary opioid users may experience additional barriers to treatment initiation and engagement in the Matrix model of substance use treatment, yet those who enter treatment are equally as likely to be abstinent at treatment exit compared to primary methamphetamine users. Findings highlight the need for additional strategies to optimize treatment initiation and engagement among primary opioid users in this setting, for instance by integrating medication-assisted treatment (e.g., methadone).
Authors: R A Rawson; S J Shoptaw; J L Obert; M J McCann; A L Hasson; P J Marinelli-Casey; P R Brethen; W Ling Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 1995 Mar-Apr
Authors: Jessica F Magidson; John A Joska; Kristen S Regenauer; Emily Satinsky; Lena S Andersen; C J Seitz-Brown; Christina P C Borba; Steven A Safren; Bronwyn Myers Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2019-05-10
Authors: Chukwuemeka N Okafor; Dan J Stein; Lisa Dannatt; Jonathan Ipser; Lara J van Nunen; Marilyn T Lake; Tamar Krishnamurti; Edythe D London; Steve Shoptaw Journal: Drug Alcohol Rev Date: 2019-12-21
Authors: Kristen S Regenauer; Bronwyn Myers; Abigail W Batchelder; Jessica F Magidson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Andrew Scheibe; Shaun Shelly; Johannes Hugo; Matilda Mohale; Sasha Lalla; Wayne Renkin; Natasha Gloeck; Senzo Khambule; Lorinda Kroukamp; Urvisha Bhoora; Tessa S Marcus Journal: Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med Date: 2020-05-06