RESEARCH REPORT

Evaluating the impact of community-based treatment options on methamphetamine use: findings from the Methamphetamine Treatment Evaluation Study (MATES)

  1. Rebecca McKetin1,2,*,
  2. Jake M. Najman3,
  3. Amanda L. Baker4,
  4. Dan I. Lubman5,
  5. Sharon Dawe6,
  6. Robert Ali7,
  7. Nicole K. Lee8,9,
  8. Richard P. Mattick2,
  9. Abdullah Mamun3

Article first published online: 12 JUL 2012

DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03933.x

Issue

Addiction

Addiction

Volume 107, Issue 11, pages 1998–2008, November 2012

Additional Information

How to Cite

McKetin, R., Najman, J. M., Baker, A. L., Lubman, D. I., Dawe, S., Ali, R., Lee, N. K., Mattick, R. P. and Mamun, A. (2012), Evaluating the impact of community-based treatment options on methamphetamine use: findings from the Methamphetamine Treatment Evaluation Study (MATES). Addiction, 107: 1998–2008. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03933.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

  2. 2

    National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

  3. 3

    Queensland Alcohol and Drug Research and Education Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

  4. 4

    Centre for Brain and Mental Health Research, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

  5. 5

    Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Eastern Health and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

  6. 6

    School of Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

  7. 7

    University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

  8. 8

    The National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

  9. 9

    National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

* Correspondence to: Rebecca McKetin, Centre for Mental Health Research, ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. E-mail: rebecca.mcketin@anu.edu.au

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 5 OCT 2012
  2. Article first published online: 12 JUL 2012
  3. Accepted manuscript online: 7 MAY 2012 07:19AM EST
  4. Manuscript Accepted: 2 MAY 2012
  5. Manuscript Revised: 5 JAN 2012
  6. Manuscript Received: 23 NOV 2011

Funded by

  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article with Supporting Information (HTML) Get PDF (623K)

Keywords:

  • Amphetamine;
  • longitudinal;
  • methamphetamine;
  • outcomes;
  • psychiatric comorbidity;
  • substance abuse;
  • treatment;
  • HIV risk;
  • crime

Abstract

Aims

To evaluate the impact of community-based drug treatment on methamphetamine use using inverse probability of treatment-weighted (IPTW) estimators to derive treatment effects.

Design

A longitudinal prospective cohort study with follow-ups at 3 months, 1 year and 3 years. Treatment effects were derived by comparing groups at follow-up. IPTW estimators were used to adjust for pre-treatment differences between groups.

Setting

Sydney and Brisbane, Australia.

Participants

Participants were methamphetamine users entering community-based detoxification (n = 112) or residential rehabilitation (n = 248) services and a quasi-control group of methamphetamine users (n = 101) recruited from the community.

Measurements

Frequency of methamphetamine use between interviews (no use, less than weekly, 1–2 days per week, 3+ days per week), continuous abstinence from methamphetamine use, past month methamphetamine use and methamphetamine dependence.

Findings

Detoxification did not reduce methamphetamine use at any follow-up relative to the quasi-control group. Relative to quasi-control and detoxification groups combined, residential rehabilitation produced large reductions in the frequency of methamphetamine use at 3 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15–0.36, P < 0.001), with a marked attenuation of this effect at 1 year (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40–0.97, P = 0.038) and 3 years (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.42–1.19, P = 0.189). The greatest impact was for abstinence: for every 100 residential rehabilitation clients there was a gain of 33 being continuously abstinent at 3 months, with this falling to 14 at 1 year and 6 at 3 years.

Conclusions

Community-based residential rehabilitation may produce a time-limited decrease in methamphetamine use, while detoxification alone does not appear to do so.

View Full Article with Supporting Information (HTML) Get PDF (623K)