Ritter Alison, Di Natale Richard
Head of Research, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Inc., Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2005 Jul;24(4):347-52. doi: 10.1080/09595230500263939.
The development of policies in relation to unsupervised doses of methadone (take-away doses) should be based upon the best available evidence. There are both risks and benefits associated with take-away doses. This study aimed to explore the relationship between take-away policies and one measure of harm: methadone injection rates. Six different states in Australia were compared in relation to their methadone take-away policy and rates of methadone injection within their population of injecting drug users. At a simplistic level, those states with restrictive and less flexible take-away policies tended to have the lowest reported prevalence of methadone injection. However, this does not fully explain variability in methadone injecting. There were also considerable differences between those states with similar take-away policies. Variables which appear to impact upon methadone injecting rates include: take-away policies, drug preference, drug availability, treatment availability and degree of treatment penetration. Consideration of the benefits, rather than merely the harms, of various take-away policy options may provide an evidence-based platform for take-away policy development.
