Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA.
J Psychoactive Drugs. 2011 Sep;Suppl 7:77-83. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2011.602281.
In California, Proposition 36 (Prop. 36) has led to positive outcomes for a significant proportion of participants-increases in drug treatment completion, reduced drug use and recidivism, and increased employment. However, there are notable differences in outcomes among Prop. 36 subgroups, with some of the poorest outcomes observed among opioid users. This may be because very few Prop. 36 opioid users were placed in narcotic treatment programs (NTPs). Prop. 36 opioid users who were placed in NTPs using methadone had the greatest reductions in opioid use from treatment intake to discharge, as compared to Prop. 36 opioid users who received outpatient drug-free or residential treatment. As such, NTPs should be considered to be a highly efficacious and viable treatment option for Prop. 36 opioid users. Thus, to improve treatment outcomes among Prop. 36 opioid users, it is essential that the provision and utilization of NTPs be enhanced.
在加利福尼亚州,第 36 号提案(Prop. 36)为相当一部分参与者带来了积极的结果——增加了药物治疗的完成率,减少了药物使用和累犯率,以及增加了就业。然而,Prop. 36 的各个亚组之间的结果存在显著差异,阿片类药物使用者的结果最差。这可能是因为很少有 Prop. 36 阿片类药物使用者被安置在麻醉品治疗计划(NTP)中。与接受门诊无毒品或住院治疗的 Prop. 36 阿片类药物使用者相比,使用美沙酮安置在 NTP 中的 Prop. 36 阿片类药物使用者在从治疗开始到出院期间,阿片类药物的使用量减少最多。因此,NTP 应被视为对 Prop. 36 阿片类药物使用者非常有效和可行的治疗选择。因此,为了改善 Prop. 36 阿片类药物使用者的治疗结果,必须加强 NTP 的提供和利用。