Suchergebnisse

During the last decade, international aid agencies and advocates have been working with Southeast Asian governments to move away from punitive responses towards people who use drugs to more public health, humane approaches. The lack of local scientific evidence about the effectiveness of different treatment approaches has made this advocacy work more challenging. This paper reflects on a generation of treatment research evidence and how it can assist advocacy efforts. The case example is the cost-effectiveness research, comparing centre-based compulsory treatment with community-based voluntary methadone maintenance treatment in Vietnam (2012–2015). Using our long-term and on-going connections with key Vietnamese decision-makers and government agencies, our collective experiences in drug policy advocacy and our unique insight into the working of government in Vietnam, we have used strategies to maximise opportunities for research to inform policy discussions. We have made an assessment here about the extent to which study findings have contributed to policy change in Vietnam and the challenges that impede progressive policy implementation. In doing this, we hope to make a contribution to the research evidence use literature.

Background: In Vietnam, like many countries in Southeast Asia, the commonly used approach of center-based compulsory drug treatment (CCT) has been criticized on human rights ground. Meanwhile, community-based voluntary methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) has been implemented for nearly a decade with promising results. Reform-minded leaders have been seeking empirical evidence of the costs and effectiveness associated with these two main treatment modalities. Conducting evaluations of these treatments, especially where randomization is not ethical, presents challenges. The aim of this paper is to discuss political challenges and methodological issues when conducting cost-effectiveness studies within the context of a non-democratic Southeast Asian country. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the political and scientific challenges that were experienced in the study design, sample size determination, government approval and ethics approvals, participant recruitment, data collection, and determination of sources, and quantification of cost and effectiveness data was undertaken. As a consequence of the non-randomized design, analysis of patient characteristics for both treatment types was undertaken to identify the magnitude of baseline group differences. Concordance between self-reported heroin use and urine drug testing was undertaken to determine the reliability of self-report data in a politically challenging environment. Results: We demonstrate that conducting research around compulsory treatment in a non-democratic society is feasible, yet it is politically challenging and requires navigation between science and politics. We also demonstrate that engagement with the government decision makers in the research conception, implementation, and dissemination of the results increases the likelihood of research evidence being considered for change in a contentious drug policy area. Conclusions: Local empirical evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of CCT and MMT in a Southeast Asian setting is critical to consideration of more holistic, humane, and effective drug-dependence treatment approaches, but the garnering of such evidence is very challenging.

Background and Aims: The configuration of alcohol and other drug treatment service systems has been influenced by the uptake of market mechanisms for treatment funding and purchasing. This study measured the impact of market mechanisms for funding and purchasing alcohol and drug treatment services on client outcomes. Design: An observational cross-sectional study, employing multi-level analysis: episodes of care data, nested within person-level data, nested within treatment site and nested within organization. Setting and participants: One hundred and seventy-eight alcohol and other drug treatment service sites in Australia. Measurements: Client outcome variables were length of stay and successful treatment completion. Predictor variables were competitive tendering, number of funding contracts, recurrent funding, the ratio of episodes to staff, type of professions, years of clinical experience, staff turnover and type of provider (government; non-government). Analyses controlled for drug type, type of treatment received and client characteristics. Findings: There were no significant associations between the procurement and contracting variables and length of stay [incidence rate ratios (IRRs) ranged between 1.01 and 1.07, all P > 0.05; Bayes factors (BF) 0.05, BF = 0.51–0.63]. Having an alcohol and other drug (AOD) work-force relative to an 'other' work-force (IRR = 0.79, P = 0.021) and lower case-loads (IRR = 0.99, P = 0.047) may be associated with longer stay in treatment. Receiving services from a government compared to non-government provider may also be associated with less treatment completion (OR = 0.34, P = 0.023, BF = 2.14). Conclusions: There appears to be no association between client outcomes and procurement and funding contract arrangements for alcohol and drug treatment services.

Objective: Both public (government-run), and not-for-profit (nongovernment) service providers provide alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services. Research has rarely studied the structural features of these providers, such as workforce characteristics, procurement arrangements, and funding security. The study reported here sought to document and analyze the differences between these two AOD treatment provider types in Australia. Methods: The study administered an online survey instrument targeted at managers of AOD treatment sites. The survey comprised three sections: (1) the service (e.g., treatment types); (2) workforce (e.g., total number of staff); and (3) funding and procurement arrangements (e.g., contract length). The study completed a total of 207 site surveys. The studied compared government and nongovernment services on structural features that may create a more or less sustainable or vulnerable service (funding arrangements, payment mechanisms, and contract length). Results: Government providers were more likely to provide medically oriented treatment types such as withdrawal management and pharmacotherapy, whereas nongovernment organization (NGO) providers were more likely to offer rehabilitation. Consistent with this, government services were more likely to employ medical professionals and nurses, indicative of a more medically oriented workforce, while NGO services were more likely to employ AOD workers, youth workers, peer workers, and counselors. Our data illustrate that NGO services were more likely to be subject to competitive tendering and to have shorter contract lengths, compared with government services, and overall to be more structurally vulnerable. Conclusion: Despite the reliance on NGOs to provide the majority of specialist care (71% of all treatment episodes in Australia), these services are more vulnerable than their government counterparts. To ensure that a comprehensive suite of treatment services is available, procurement arrangements that support stability and security in nongovernment service providers and government service providers are essential.

Introduction: In Vietnam, like many countries in East and Southeast Asia, the government has invested heavily in center-based compulsory treatment (CCT) as the mainstay demand reduction strategy for illicit drug use. This approach has been criticised on human rights grounds. Meanwhile, community-based voluntary methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) has been implemented for nearly a decade with promising results. To date, there have been no comparative Vietnamese studies of these approaches. Material and methods: The study, involving 208 CCT participants and 384 MMT participants with heroin dependence, was a combined retrospective and prospective observational study conducted over three years between 2012 and 2014 (with data at five time-points). The primary outcome was: self-report heroin use (confirmed by urinalysis). The four secondary outcomes were: illegal behaviours, overdose, blood-borne virus (BBV) risk behaviours, and monthly drug expenditure. Mixed effects regression analyses, which took into account baseline differences between the groups, were used to analyse the data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03071315. Results: The study found MMT was more strongly associated with four outcome measures compared to CCT (reduction in heroin use (β = 3.39, SE = 0.31, p <.0001) (equivalent to an odds ratio of 29.67 (95% CI 21.76–40.45)), reduction in illegal behaviours (β = 0.94, SE = 0.39, p <.0001), (equivalent to an odds ratio of 2.56 (95% CI 1.79–3.78)), reduction in BBV risk behaviours (β = 1.08, SE = 0.17, p <.0001), (equivalent to an odds ratio of 2.94 (95% CI 2.48–3.49)), and reduction in monthly drug spending (β = −VND1,515,200 (equivalent to US$72.00), SE = VND452,900, p <.0001)). The analyses did not support the hypothesis that MMT was associated with better outcomes pertaining to overdose (β = −0.27, SE = 0.30, p =.62), probably due to the infrequency of these self-reported events. Conclusions: Our observational study suggests that MMT is associated with greater reductions in heroin use, BBV risk behaviours, drug-related illegal behaviours, and monthly drug spending compared with CCT. In the context that the CCT approach has been criticized for human rights violations, this study provides evidence to support the scale up of MMT and the transition of CCT to voluntary community based treatment.