| Literature DB >> 31703302 |
Xiaoyan Fan1, Xiao Zhang1,2, Huifang Xu3, Fan Yang4, Joseph T F Lau5,6, Chun Hao1,7, Jinghua Li1,7, Yuteng Zhao3, Yuantao Hao1,7, Jing Gu1,7.
Abstract
Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is an important approach to address opioid dependence. However, MMT clinics usually report high attrition rates. Our previous randomized controlled trial demonstrated additional psycho-social services delivered by social workers could reduce attrition rates compared to MMT alone. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of psycho-social service in a real-world context. A quasi-experimental design and propensity score matching was adopted. 359 clients were recruited from five MMT clinics in Guangzhou from July 2013 to April 2015. One 20-minute counseling session was offered to the control group after enrolment. The intervention group received six sessions of psycho-social services. The baseline characteristics were unbalanced between two arms in the original sample. After propensity score matching, 248 participants remained in the analysis. At month six, the intervention group had a lower attrition rate [intervention (39.5%) versus control (52.4%), P = 0.041], higher monthly income [monthly income of 1000 CNY or higher: intervention (55.9%) versus control (39.0%), P = 0.028)], higher detoxification intention score [full intention score: intervention (51.6%) versus control (32.5%), P = 0.012)], higher family support in MMT participation [intervention (77.9%) versus control (61.4%), P = 0.049)]. This study demonstrated that psycho-social services delivered by social workers can reduce MMT clients' attrition and improve their well-being in real-world settings.Entities:
Keywords: China; attrition; methadone maintenance treatment; propensity score matching; psycho-social intervention
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31703302 PMCID: PMC6888175 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16224337
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flow chart of the study.
Baseline characteristics of before-and after-matching sample.
| Before-matching Sample (n = 359) | After-matching Sample (n = 248) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Intervention | SDiff | Control | Intervention | SDiff | |
| (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | |||
|
| ||||||
| Sex (female) | 8.7 | 14.5 | 0.182 | 10.5 | 12.9 | 0.075 |
| Age (>45 years) | 63.6 | 61.3 | 0.048 | 57.3 | 59.7 | 0.049 |
| Education level | ||||||
| Primary or below | 17.3 | 21.0 | 0.094 | 17.7 | 19.4 | 0.044 |
| Junior high | 68.2 | 59.7 | 0.178 | 68.5 | 60.5 | 0.168 |
| Senior high or above | 14.5 | 19.4 | 0.131 | 13.7 | 20.2 | 0.174 |
| Current marriage status | ||||||
| Single | 43.4 | 38.7 | 0.096 | 40.3 | 38.7 | 0.033 |
| Married/cohabitating | 40.5 | 39.8 | 0.014 | 44.4 | 41.9 | 0.050 |
| Divorced/other | 16.2 | 21.5 | 0.136 | 15.3 | 19.4 | 0.108 |
| Current employment status (Employed) | 33.5 | 40.3 | 0.141 | 35.5 | 45.2 | 0.199 |
| Monthly income (>1000 CNY) | 42.2 | 46.2 | 0.081 | 42.7 | 53.2 | 0.195 |
| Being HIV positive (yes) | 1.7 | 11.3 | 0.397a | 2.4 | 4.0 | 0.091 |
|
| ||||||
| Age of initial drug use (>25 years old) | 60.1 | 54.3 | 0.117 | 56.5 | 54.0 | 0.050 |
| Duration of drug use (>20 years) | 58.4 | 61.6 | 0.065 | 56.5 | 59.3 | 0.057 |
| Ever injected drugs (yes) | 59.0 | 73.1 | 0.301a | 65.3 | 64.5 | 0.017 |
| Times of compulsory detoxification | ||||||
| 0 | 20.5 | 21.1 | 0.015 | 21.1 | 22.8 | 0.041 |
| 1-2 | 45.6 | 35.1 | 0.215 | 43.9 | 39.8 | 0.083 |
| 3~ | 33.9 | 43.8 | 0.204 | 35.0 | 37.4 | 0.050 |
| Current drug use | ||||||
| No use | 20.2 | 21.0 | 0.020 | 26.6 | 21.8 | 0.112 |
| Less than once a day | 26.0 | 33.9 | 0.173 | 22.6 | 33.1 | 0.236 |
| At least once a day | 53.8 | 45.2 | 0.173 | 50.8 | 45.2 | 0.112 |
| detox intention score | ||||||
| <8 | 23.7 | 25.3 | 0.037 | 20.0 | 29.0 | 0.210 |
| 8-9 | 42.2 | 34.4 | 0.161 | 40.3 | 35.5 | 0.099 |
| 10 | 34.1 | 40.3 | 0.129 | 39.5 | 35.5 | 0.083 |
|
| ||||||
| Having proper perception about MMT aim/time | 43.9 | 43.5 | 0.008 | 42.7 | 44.4 | 0.034 |
| Having proper perception about MMT dosage | 42.2 | 40.9 | 0.026 | 38.7 | 46.0 | 0.148 |
| Self-efficacy of MMT retention in the next six months | ||||||
| Low | 24.3 | 26.9 | 0.060 | 25.0 | 25.0 | <0.001 |
| Medium | 47.4 | 44.6 | 0.056 | 47.6 | 47.6 | <0.001 |
| High | 28.3 | 28.5 | 0.004 | 27.4 | 27.4 | <0.001 |
| Willing to accept psycho-social services (yes) | 72.3 | 87.6 | 0.389a | 84.7 | 84.7 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||
| Score of Perceived Social Support Scale (Mean, SD) | 10.4, 2.0 | 10.1, 2.4 | 0.149 | 10.2, 2.2 | 10.5, 2.2 | 0.147 |
| Family awareness of MMT | ||||||
| Disagree/Extremely disagree | 21.4 | 29.6 | 0.189 | 21.8 | 21.0 | 0.020 |
| Don’t know/hard to say | 40.5 | 28.5 | 0.254a | 36.3 | 33.1 | 0.067 |
| Agree/Extremely agree | 38.2 | 41.9 | 0.076 | 41.9 | 46.0 | 0.083 |
| Family support in MMT | ||||||
| Disagree/Extremely disagree | 9.2 | 9.7 | 0.017 | 8.9 | 9.7 | 0.028 |
| Don’t know/hard to say | 28.3 | 27.4 | 0.020 | 25.8 | 25.8 | <0.001 |
| Agree/Extremely agree | 62.4 | 62.9 | 0.010 | 65.3 | 64.5 | 0.017 |
| Good MMT communication with family members | ||||||
| Disagree/Extremely disagree | 19.1 | 28.5 | 0.222 | 25.0 | 23.4 | 0.037 |
| Don’t know/hard to say | 40.5 | 26.3 | 0.305a | 30.6 | 30.6 | <0.001 |
| Agree/Extremely agree | 40.5 | 45.2 | 0.095 | 44.4 | 46.0 | 0.032 |
|
| ||||||
| Physical functioning | 50.8, 9.0 | 49.4, 9.5 | 0.153 | 50.6, 9.1 | 50.7, 8.5 | 0.016 |
| Role-physical | 45.7, 16.5 | 44.9, 16.3 | 0.047 | 44.7, 17.0 | 46.9, 15.5 | 0.137 |
| Role-emotional | 44.7, 18.8 | 37.8, 21.0 | 0.346 a | 43.3, 19.6 | 43.5, 19.2 | 0.009 |
| Mental health | 45.9, 8.3 | 44.6, 10.3 | 0.147 | 46.3, 8.8 | 46.7, 9.2 | 0.049 |
| General health | 44.3, 9.4 | 43.2, 11.3 | 0.109 | 44.3, 9.9 | 42.8, 11.3 | 0.138 |
| Bodily pain | 49.8, 8.3 | 48.4, 9.0 | 0.160 | 50.1, 9.1 | 49.3, 8.3 | 0.095 |
| Vitality | 49.0, 9.2 | 46.4, 9.8 | 0.267 a | 49.0, 9.8 | 47.6, 9.3 | 0.150 |
| Social functioning | 43.3, 9.9 | 43.0, 10.5 | 0.033 | 42.6, 10.8 | 43.7, 9.7 | 0.114 |
| Physical Component Summary | 49.3, 7.5 | 49.2, 8.5 | 0.005 | 49.1, 7.8 | 49.2, 7.3 | 0.004 |
| Mental Component Summary | 44.1, 10.5 | 40.4, 13.0 | 0.320 a | 43.6, 11.0 | 43.7, 11.0 | 0.005 |
SDiff, standardized difference; CNY, Chinese Yuan; MMT, methadone maintenance treatment; SD, standard deviation; a, SDiff value > 0.25.
Attrition rates and relative risk of after-matching sample (N = 248).
| Attrition Rates (%) | Propensity-Matched Cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | M6 | M12 | |
| Control | 19.4 (24/124) | 52.4 (65/124) | 75.0 (93/124) |
| Intervention | 10.5 (13/124) | 39.5 (49/124) | 58.9 (73/124) |
| RR (95% CI) | 0.901 (0.811,1.001) | 0.787 (0.623,0.993) * | 0.608 (0.420,0.880) * |
| Absolutely risk reduction (95% CI) | 0.089 [0.001,0.177] * | 0.129 (0.006,0.252) * | 0.161 (0.046,0.277) * |
| Reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction | 12 | 8 | 6 |
RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; *: P < 0.05.
Figure 2Retention curves of before-and after-matching sample: (2-a) 1-month retention curve of before-matching sample; (2-b) 6-month retention curve of before-matching sample; (2-c) 12-month retention curve of before-matching sample; (2-d) 1-month retention curve of after-matching sample; (2-e) 1-month retention curve of after-matching sample; (2-f) 1-month retention curve of after-matching sample.
Secondary outcomes of after-matching sample (N = 248).
| M0 (n = 248) n (%) | M1 (n = 211) n (%) | M6 (n = 172) n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Current employment status (Employed) | ||||
| Control | 44 (35.5) | 30 (30.3) | 29 (37.7) | 0.864 |
| Intervention | 56 (45.2) | 47 (43.1) | 47 (50.0) | 0.516 |
| RR (95% CI) | 1.18 (0.96,1.45) | 1.23 (0.99,1.51)+ | 1.25 (0.96,1.63) | |
| Monthly income (>1000 CNY) | ||||
| Control | 54 (43.5) | 38 (38.8) | 30 (39.0) | 0.481 |
| Intervention | 66 (53.2) | 52 (47.7) | 52 (55.9) | 0.767 |
| RR (95% CI) | 1.21 (0.95,1.54) | 1.17 (0.92,1.49) | 1.39 (1.04,1.85)* | |
|
| ||||
| Current drug use | ||||
| Control | 91 (73.4) | 26 (28.6) | 16 (21.6) | <0.001* |
| Intervention | 97 (78.2) | 21 (19.6) | 12 (13.2) | <0.001* |
| RR (95% CI) | 1.22 (0.78,1.90) | 0.889 (0.76,1.04) | 0.903 (0.78,1.04) | |
| Detox intention score (=10) | ||||
| Control | 49 (39.5) | 42 (42.4) | 25 (32.5) | 0.391 |
| Intervention | 44 (35.5) | 54 (49.1) | 49 (51.6) | 0.014* |
| RR (95% CI) | 0.94 (0.77,1.14) | 1.13 (0.88,1.45) | 1.40 (1.08,1.81)* | |
|
| ||||
| Proper perception about MMT aim/duration | ||||
| Control | 53 (42.7) | 50 (50.0) | 34 (44.2) | 0.730 |
| Intervention | 55 (44.4) | 53 (47.7) | 52 (54.7) | 0.133 |
| RR (95% CI) | 1.03 (0.83,1.28) | 0.96 (0.73,1.25) | 1.23 (0.92,1.66) | |
| Proper perception about MMT dosage | ||||
| Control | 48 (38.7) | 39 (39.0) | 28 (36.4) | 0.763 |
| Intervention | 57 (46.0) | 40 (36.0) | 28 (29.5) | 0.012* |
| RR (95% CI) | 1.13 (0.92,1.41) | 0.95 (0.77,1.18) | 0.90 (0.73,1.12) | |
|
| ||||
| Score of Perceived Social Support Scale (Mean, SD) | ||||
| Control | 10.20,2.19 | 10.39,2.57 | 10.30,1.99 | 0.887 |
| Intervention | 10.52,2.18 | 10.22,2.35 | 10.08,2.16 | 0.059+ |
| Mean diff (95% CI) | 0.28 (−0.22,0.87) | −0.03 (−0.69,0.63) | −0.23 (−0.86,0.41) | |
| Family awareness of MMT (agree/extremely agree) | ||||
| Control | 52 (41.9) | 55 (55.6) | 31 (44.3) | 0.513 |
| Intervention | 57 (46.0) | 63 (57.3) | 49 (54.4) | 0.180 |
| RR (95% CI) | 1.08 (0.86,1.34) | 1.04 (0.76,1.42) | 1.22 (0.90,1.66) | |
| Family support in MMT (Agree/Extremely agree) | ||||
| Control | 81 (65.3) | 71 (71.7) | 43 (61.4) | 0.748 |
| Intervention | 80 (64.5) | 78 (71.6) | 70 (77.8) | 0.034* |
| RR (95% CI) | 0.98 (0.70,1.37) | 0.99 (0.65,1.53) | 1.74 (1.07,2.82) * | |
| Good MMT communication with family members (Agree/Extremely agree) | ||||
| Control | 55 (44.4) | 54 (54.5) | 28 (40.0) | 0.796 |
| Intervention | 57 (46.0) | 60 (54.5) | 46 (51.1) | 0.401 |
| RR (95% CI) | 1.03 (0.82,1.29) | 1.00 (0.74,1.35) | 1.23 (0.92,1.63) | |
|
| ||||
| Physical component summary | ||||
| Control | 49.13,7.81 | 50.60,7.61 | 50.36,7.93 | 0.717 |
| Intervention | 49.16,7.33 | 51.40,6.99 | 50.17,8.05 | 0.165 |
| Mean difference (95% CI) | 0.03 (−1.86,1.93) | 0.80 (−1.18,2.79) | −0.20 (−2.62,2.23) | |
| Mental component summary | ||||
| Control | 43.64,11.01 | 45.07,11.13 | 43.70,11.10 | 0.396 |
| Intervention | 43.70,10.98 | 42.93,11.68 | 46.46,12.47 | 0.058+ |
| Mean difference (95% CI) | 0.06 (−2.69,2.81) | −2.14 (−5.25,0.97) | 2.77 (−0.80,6.33) |
RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; CNY, Chinese Yuan; MMT, methadone maintenance treatment; SD, standard deviation; +, P < 0.1; *, P < 0.05.