Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:06:13.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in the quality of life of two groups of drug users

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Siobhan Rooney ,
Aideen Freyne ,
Gabrielle Kelly  and
John O'Connor
Siobhan Rooney
Affiliation:
National Drug Treatment Centre, Pearse St, Dublin 2, Ireland
Aideen Freyne
Affiliation:
St Vincent's Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
Gabrielle Kelly
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
John O'Connor
Affiliation:
National Drug Treatment Centre, Pearse Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare aspects of the quality of life of drug users on a methadone maintenance programme to drug users on a harm minimisation programme.

Method: Thirty-six clients attending the harm minimisation programme in the National Drug Treatment Centre, Dublin, were matched for age and sex to 36 clients on the methadone maintenance programme. All were interviewed with the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire to measure health related quality of life and with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADs) to measure psychological morbidity.

Results: More clients from the harm minimisation programme had previous psychiatric problems than clients on the methadone maintenance programme, with an odds ratio of 4.3 CI(1.2,15.2). On the HADs, clients on the methadone maintenance programme had significantly lower depression scores than clients on the harm minimisation programme. In addition more clients on the harm minimisation programme were severely depressed than clients on the methadone maintenance programme. On the UK SF-36 Scale, clients on the harm minimisation programme perceived a significantly greater deterioration in ‘change in health’ over the previous year than clients on the methadone maintenance programme.

Conclusions: Although clients on a methadone maintenance programme had an improved perception of their quality of life in relation to psychological and overall health function from the previous year, compared to clients on a harm minimisation programme, there still existed varying degrees of psychopathology in both groups which need to be considered when providing future services for drug users.

Keywords

Quality of lifeMethadone maintenance programmeHarm minimisation programme
Type
Original Papers
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 55 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.WHO. Constitution of the World Health Organisation. World Health Organisation. Handbook of basic documents, 5th ed. Geneva; 2–30.Google Scholar
2.Ware, JE, Brook, RH, Davies-Avery, Aet al.Conceptualisation and measurement of health of adults in the health insurance study. Volume 1: Model of health and methodology. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1980.Google Scholar
3.Stewart, AL, Ware, JE. Measuring functioning and well-being: the medical outcomes study approach. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. 1992.Google Scholar
4.Torrens, M, San, L, Martinez, Aet al.Use of the Nottingham Health Profile for measuring health status of patients in methadone maintenance treatment. Addiction 1997; 92(6): 707–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Ryan, C, White, JM. Health status at entry to methadone maintenance treatment using the SF-36 survey questionnaire. Addiction 1996; 91(1): 39–45.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Marsden, J, Gossop, M, Stewart, Det al.Psychiatric symptoms among clients seeking treatment for drug dependence: Intake data from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 176: 285–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Regier, DA, Farmer, ME, Rae, DSet al.Comorbidity of mental disorders with alcohol and other drug abuse: results from the epidemiologic catchment area (ECA) study. JAMA 1990; 264: 2511–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Rounsaville, BJ, Kleber, HD. Untreated opiates addicts: how do they differ from those seeking treatment? Arch Gen Psych 1985; 42: 1072–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Williams, H, O'Connor, JJ, Kinsella, A. Depressive symptoms in opiate addicts on methadone maintenance. Ir J Psychol Med 1990; 7: 45–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Jenkinson, C, Layte, R, Wright, Let al.The UK SF-36: An analysis and interpretation manual. A guide to health status measurement with particular reference to the Short Form 36 Health Survey. Health Services Research Unit, University of Oxford, 1996Google Scholar
11.Jenkinson, C, Wright, L, Coulter, A. Criterion validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample. Quality of Life Research 1994; 3: 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Ware, JE. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston MA: Nimrod Press, 1993.Google Scholar
13.Blake, C. Codd, MB, O'Meara, YM. The Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey: normative data for an Irish population. Ir J Med Sci 2000; 169(3): 195–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.SF-36TM Health Survey, Copyright © 1992 Medical Outcomes Trust. All Rights Reserved. Reproduced with permission of the Medical Outcomes Trust.Google Scholar
15.Zigmond, AS, Snaith, RP. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67: 361–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley: New York. 1990.Google Scholar
17.Schottenfeld, R, Carroll, K, Rounsaville, B. Comorbid psychiatric disorders and cocaine abuse. (Review) NIDA Res Monogr 1993; 135: 31–47.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Milby, JB, Sims, MK, Khuder, Set al.Psychiatric comorbidity: prevalence in methadone maintenance treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1996; 22(1): 95–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Darke, S, Swift, W, Hall, W. Prevalence, severity and correlates of psychological morbidity among methadone maintenance clients. Addiction 1994; 89(2): 211–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.McLelland, AT, Luborsky, L, Woody, GEet al.Predicting response to alcohol and drug abuse treatments. Arch Gen Psych 1983; 40: 620–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Hawton, K, Fagg, J, Platt, S. Factors associated with suicide after parasuicide in young people. BMJ 1993; 306: 1641–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Hall, W, Farrell, M. Comorbidity of mental disorders with substance misuse. Br J Psych 1997; 171: 4–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Neeleman, J, Farrell, M. Suicide and substance misuse. Br J Psych 1997; 171: 303–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Deykin, EY, Buka, SL. Suicidal ideation and attempts among chemically dependent adolescents. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 634–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Shaffer, D, Gould, MS, Fischer, Pet al.Psychiatric diagnosis in child and adolescent suicide. Arch Gen Psych 1996; 52: 339–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Magura, S, Rosenblum, A. Leaving methadone treatment: lessons learned, lessons forgotten, lessons ignored. (Review) Mount Sinai J Med 2001; 68(1): 62–74.Google ScholarPubMed
27.National consensus development panel on effective medical treatment of opiate addiction (NiH consensus conference]. Effective medical treatment of opiate addiction. JAMA 1998; 280(22): 1936–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar