| Literature DB >> 29670549 |
Pulin Liu1,2, Ranran Song1, Yao Zhang3, Cheng Liu1, Bingxi Cai1, Xuebing Liu3, Jiaoyuan Li1, Xueqin Chen1, Juntao Ke1, Jiao Lou1, Wei Chen1, Beibei Zhu1, Li Zou1, Yang Yang1, Ying Zhu1, Yajie Gong1, Rong Zhong1, Xiaoping Miao1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) programs have been rapidly scaled up nationwide in China in recent years, and psychosocial intervention measures, including counseling, were recommended for improving the outcomes of MMT. However, the effectiveness of counseling in MMT programs remains controversial. This study investigated the efficacy of educational and behavioral counseling (EBC) mode in an MMT program in China.Entities:
Keywords: China; counseling; methadone maintenance treatment; psychosocial intervention; randomized controlled trial
Year: 2018 PMID: 29670549 PMCID: PMC5893781 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00113
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Figure 1Enrollment and randomization.
Characteristics of participants in educational and behavioral counseling (EBC) and treatment as usual (TAU) groups.
| Characteristics | EBC ( | TAU ( | χ2 or | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, | 0.128 | 0.721 | ||
| Male | 47 (75.8) | 46 (73.0) | ||
| Female | 15 (24.2) | 17 (27.0) | ||
| Education level, | 2.863 | 0.413 | ||
| Primary school and less | 5 (8.1) | 4 (6.4) | ||
| Junior middle school | 40 (64.5) | 36 (57.1) | ||
| Senior high school | 13 (21.0) | 21 (33.3) | ||
| College or higher | 4 (6.4) | 2 (3.2) | ||
| Marital status, | 1.079 | 0.898 | ||
| Unmarried | 17 (27.4) | 14 (22.2) | ||
| Married | 26 (42.0) | 27 (42.9) | ||
| cohabitation | 1 (1.6) | 1 (1.6) | ||
| divorced | 16 (25.8) | 20 (31.7) | ||
| Widowhood | 2 (3.2) | 1 (1.6) | ||
| Employment, | 0.121 | 0.728 | ||
| Yes | 16 (25.8) | 18 (28.6) | ||
| No | 46 (74.2) | 45 (71.4) | ||
| Injection history, | 1.216 | 0.270 | ||
| Yes | 57 (91.9) | 54 (85.7) | ||
| No | 5 (8.1) | 9 (14.3) | ||
| Detoxification history, | 2.058 | 0.151 | ||
| Yes | 58 (93.5) | 54 (85.7) | ||
| No | 4 (6.5) | 9 (14.3) | ||
| Age, mean (SD) | 44.03 (7.44) | 42.65 (6.26) | 1.124 | 0.263 |
| Drug use years, mean (SD) | 17.03 (4.70) | 15.35 (5.49) | 1.840 | 0.068 |
| Treatment years, mean (SD) | 5.19 (1.85) | 4.63 (1.85) | 1.682 | 0.094 |
| Methadone dosage (mg/day), mean (SD) | 75.87 (36.01) | 80.05 (33.89) | 0.688 | 0.505 |
Characteristics of participants and drop-outs.
| Characteristics | Participants ( | Drop-outs ( | χ2 or | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, | 0.073 | 0.787 | ||
| Male | 83 (74.8) | 10 (71.4) | ||
| Female | 28 (25.2) | 4 (28.6) | ||
| Education level, | 5.615 | 0.132 | ||
| Primary school and less | 6 (5.4) | 3 (21.4) | ||
| Junior middle school | 68 (61.3) | 8 (57.1) | ||
| Senior high school | 32 (28.8) | 2 (14.3) | ||
| College or higher | 5 (4.5) | 1 (7.1) | ||
| Marital status, | 13.331 | 0.010 | ||
| Unmarried | 22 (19.8) | 9 (64.3) | ||
| Married | 50 (45.0) | 3 (21.4) | ||
| cohabitation | 2 (1.8) | 0 (0) | ||
| divorced | 34 (30.6) | 2 (14.3) | ||
| Widowhood | 3 (2.7) | 0 (0) | ||
| Employment, | 5.891 | 0.015 | ||
| Yes | 34 (30.6) | 0 (0) | ||
| No | 77 (69.4) | 14 (100) | ||
| Injection history, | 0.261 | 0.609 | ||
| Yes | 98 (88.3) | 13 (92.9) | ||
| No | 13 (11.7) | 1 (7.1) | ||
| Detoxification history, | 0.179 | 0.672 | ||
| Yes | 99 (89.2) | 13 (92.9) | ||
| No | 12 (10.8) | 1 (7.1) | ||
| Age, mean (SD) | 43.86 (6.61) | 39.14 (7.76) | 2.469 | 0.015 |
| Drug use years, mean (SD) | 16.50 (5.141) | 13.71 (4.795) | 1.921 | 0.057 |
| Treatment years, mean (SD) | 4.96 (1.892) | 4.50 (1.653) | 0.876 | 0.383 |
| Methadone dosage (mg/day), mean (SD) | 78.04 (35.07) | 77.50 (34.54) | 0.054 | 0.957 |
*P < 0.05.
Primary and secondary outcomes in educational and behavioral counseling (EBC) and treatment as usual (TAU) groups.
| Outcomes | EBC ( | TAU ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment attendance-days | |||
| Median | 91.00 | 79.00 | 0.025 |
| IQR | 73.75–102.25 | 47.00–99.00 | |
| Opiate-negative urine specimens-% | |||
| Mean | 76.74 | 67.38 | 0.054 |
| 95%CI | 70.75–82.47 | 60.11–74.17 | |
| Total score of knowledge | |||
| Mean | 10.56 | 8.94 | <0.001 |
| 95%CI | 10.25–10.87 | 8.61–9.27 | |
| Subscore 1 | |||
| Mean | 2.25 | 1.16 | <0.001 |
| 95%CI | 2.11–2.40 | 1.03–1.29 | |
| Subscore 2 | |||
| Mean | 4.81 | 4.24 | <0.001 |
| 95%CI | 4.66–4.97 | 4.03–4.44 | |
| Subscore 3 | |||
| Mean | 3.49 | 3.55 | 0.475 |
| 95%CI | 3.39–3.60 | 3.44–3.65 | |
| No Injection within last month-% | |||
| Mean | 52.9 | 57.4 | 0.816 |
| 95%CI | 47.1–58.8 | 51.2–63.2 | |
| Needles or other equipment Sharing-% | |||
| Mean | 13.9 | 13.2 | 0.986 |
| 95%CI | 9.9–17.9 | 9.3–17.4 | |
CI, confidence interval; IQR, inter-quartile range; Subscore1, score of knowledge related to heroin addiction; Subscore2, score of knowledge related to methadone maintenance treatment; Subscore3, score of knowledge related to HIV/AIDS.
*P < 0.05.
**P < 0.01.
Generalized estimating equation analyses for primary and secondary outcomes (continuous variables).
| Outcomes | Group | Estimated marginal means (SE) | Group effect | Time × group interaction | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 0 | Week 1–4 | Week 5–8 | Week 9–12 | Week 13–16 | β (95%CI) | |||
| Treatment attendance | EBC | – | 20.11 (0.920) | 22.41 (0.718) | 22.25 (0.820) | 22.13 (0.833) | 3.089 (0.436–5.741) | wald = 2.475, |
| TAU | – | 18.71 (0.905) | 19.72 (0.928) | 19.84 (1.032) | 19.04 (1.066) | wald = 5.208, | ||
| Total scores | EBC | 8.39 (0.302) | 10.75 (0.317) | 10.87 (0.298) | 11.26 (0.317) | 11.6 (0.331) | 2.294 (1.217–3.371) | wald = 26.829, |
| TAU | 8.09 (0.328) | 8.84 (0.332) | 9.4 (0.312) | 9.18 (0.441) | 9.31 (0.438) | wald = 17.426, | ||
| Subscore1 | EBC | 1.36 (0.135) | 2.46 (0.164) | 2.36 (0.144) | 2.42 (0.161) | 2.70 (0.161) | 1.341 (0.880–1.802) | wald = 19.986, |
| TAU | 0.85 (0.113) | 1.04 (0.126) | 1.27 (0.142) | 1.33 (0.170) | 1.36 (0.171) | wald = 19.986, | ||
| Subscore2 | EBC | 3.98 (0.195) | 4.79 (0.163) | 4.96 (0.143) | 5.21 (0.159) | 5.17 (0.170) | 0.884 (0.262–1.506) | wald = 9.632, |
| TAU | 3.89 (0.195) | 4.18 (0.230) | 4.51 (0.194) | 4.33 (0.254) | 4.29 (0.268) | wald = 7.758, | ||
| Subscore3 | EBC | 3.05 (0.135) | 3.50 (0.101) | 3.55 (0.113) | 3.64 (0.104) | 3.74 (0.100) | 0.069 (−0.264 to 0.403) | wald = 5.738, |
| TAU | 3.35 (0.132) | 3.62 (0.087) | 3.62 (0.101) | 3.51 (0.142) | 3.67 (0.137) | wald = 0.165, | ||
CI, confidence interval; TAU, treatment as usual; EBC, educational and behavioral counseling; Subscore1, score of knowledge related to heroin addiction; Subscore2, score of knowledge related to methadone maintenance treatment; Subscore3, score of knowledge related to HIV/AIDS.
*P < 0.05.
**P < 0.01.
Figure 2Treatment attendance of educational and behavioral counseling (EBC) and treatment as usual (TAU) group. The patients in the EBC group showed better treatment attendance than those in TAU group. There was not significantly group different during weeks 9–12 (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01).
Figure 3Knowledge scores of educational and behavioral counseling (EBC) and treatment as usual (TAU) group. (A–C) presented significant differences between the EBC and TAU group on the total knowledge scores and knowledge subgroup scores related to heroin addiction and methadone maintenance treatment, and (D) showed that there is no significant difference between the EBC and TAU group on the knowledge subgroup scores related to HIV/AIDS (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01).
Generalized estimating equation analyses for primary and secondary outcomes (categorical variables).
| Outcomes | Group | OR | 95%CI | Group effect | Time × group interaction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | Wald Chi-square | Wald Chi-square | |||||
| Urine analysis | EBC | 0.423 | 0.100 | 1.791 | 1.365 | 0.243 | 18.179 | 0.253 |
| TAU | – | |||||||
| Injection frequency | EBC | 0.725 | 0.318 | 1.652 | 0.585 | 0.444 | 12.339 | 0.015 |
| TAU | – | |||||||
| Needles Sharing or not | EBC | 0.444 | 0.100 | 1.976 | 1.136 | 0.287 | 7.431 | 0.115 |
| TAU | – | |||||||
TAU, treatment as usual; EAU, educational and behavioral counseling.
*P < 0.05.