Client satisfaction among participants in a randomized trial comparing oral methadone and injectable diacetylmorphine for long-term opioid-dependency
2011

Client Satisfaction in Opioid Dependency Treatment

Sample size: 251 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Marchand Kirsten I, Oviedo-Joekes Eugenia, Guh Daphne, Brissette Suzanne, Marsh David C, Schechter Martin T

Primary Institution: Centre for Health Evaluation & Outcome Sciences, Providence Health Care

Hypothesis

Does patient satisfaction with Opioid Substitution Treatment (OST) vary by treatment modality and patient characteristics?

Conclusion

Participants receiving injectable diacetylmorphine were more satisfied with their treatment compared to those receiving oral methadone.

Supporting Evidence

  • 232 participants completed the CSQ-8 at 3 months, and 237 at 12 months.
  • Participants in both groups reported high satisfaction with treatment.
  • Satisfaction was greater among those randomized to the injection group.
  • Participants satisfied at 3 months were more likely to be retained at 12 months.
  • 149 participants provided open-ended comments about their treatment experiences.

Takeaway

People who got injections for their opioid addiction liked their treatment more than those who took pills.

Methodology

Data from a randomized controlled trial comparing oral methadone and injectable diacetylmorphine was analyzed using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8).

Potential Biases

Social desirability bias may have influenced participants' satisfaction responses.

Limitations

The sample was homogenous and may not represent all opioid-dependent individuals.

Participant Demographics

Participants were aged 25 or older, with at least 5 years of opioid dependence, and included a higher proportion of Aboriginal individuals in Vancouver.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI = 2.23, 17.39

Statistical Significance

p<0.01

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1472-6963-11-174

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication