Medication assisted treatment in US drug courts: Results from a nationwide survey of availability, barriers and attitudes

Matusow, Harlan

doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2012.08.077

Cited by 34 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These ethical conflicts are present not only within jails and prisons but also in drug courts. A 2013 survey found that only 34 percent of US drug courts report permitting initiation of opioid agonist therapy in some circumstances, including continuation of treatment for those on agonist therapy [36]. In a study of clinicians who work with drug courts, respondents felt that the reason judges don't allow methadone is because of their personal biases against methadone as a valid treatment.…”

Section: Ethical and Legal Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why It's Inappropriate Not to Treat Incarcerated Patients with Opioid Agonist Therapy

Wakeman¹

2017

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the criminalization of drug use and addiction, opioid use disorder is overrepresented in incarcerated populations. Decades of evidence supports opioid agonist therapy as a highly effective treatment that improves clinical outcomes and reduces illicit opioid use, overdose death, and cost. Opioid agonist therapy has been both studied within correctional facilities and initiated prerelease. It has been found to be beneficial, yet few incarcerated persons receive this evidence-based treatment. In addition to not offering treatment initiation for those who need it, most correctional facilities forcibly withdraw stable patients from opioid agonist therapy upon their entry into the criminal justice system. This approach limits their access to evidence-based health care and results in negative outcomes for individuals, communities, and society.

show abstract

Section: Ethical and Legal Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why It's Inappropriate Not to Treat Incarcerated Patients with Opioid Agonist Therapy

Wakeman¹

2017

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A survey conducted with a weighted sample of drug courts in the United States found that only half allowed opioid agonist treatment (OAT), including methadone or buprenorphine, although 98% of sites reported participants with opioid dependence. Whereas court administrators cited cost as one of two principal obstacles to offering OAT, the other obstacle was court policy, reflecting a misunderstanding of and opposition to methadone rooted in stigma (72).…”

Section: Interventions To Prevent Jail and Prison Stays By Diverting mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Opportunities to Improve the Health of People Involved in the Criminal Justice System in the United States

Freudenberg

Heller

2016

Annu. Rev. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decade, many constituencies have questioned the efficacy, cost, and unintended consequences of mass incarceration in the United States. Although substantial evidence now demonstrates that US incarceration policies have had unintended adverse health consequences, we know less about the strategies and policies that can prevent or reduce these problems for justiceinvolved individuals and how the criminal justice system (CJS) can contribute to the Healthy People 2020 national goal of eliminating inequities in health. This review examines strategies that have been used to improve the health of people at various stages of CJS involvement, including diversion from jail and prison stays into community settings, improvements to the social and physical environments within correctional facilities, provision of health and other services to inmates, assistance for people leaving correctional facilities to make the transition back to the community, and systems coordination and integration.

show abstract

“…In particular, the use of agonist SUD medications is limited by its being viewed in the criminal justice system as drug substitution (Friedmann et al, 2012;Marlowe, 2011;McMillan & Lapham, 2005;Walters et al, 2007). Other studies using samples of prisons, jails, or community corrections agencies indicate that MAT is rarely used (Friedmann et al, 2012;Matusow et al, 2013;Taxman et al, 2007). As a result, a treatment center's connection with the criminal justice system has been shown to be associated with both less adoption and less sustained use of medications for AUD and opioid use disorder (Abraham et al, 2011;Ducharme et al, 2006;Knudsen & Roman, 2012).…”

Section: Barriers To the Adoption Of Injectable Naltrexonementioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption of Injectable Naltrexone in U.S. Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs

Aletraris¹,

Edmond²,

Roman³

2015

J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Objective: Medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) is not widely used in treatment programs. The aims of the current study were to document the prevalence of adoption and implementation of extended-release injectable naltrexone, the newest U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved medication for alcohol use disorder (AUD), in U.S. treatment programs and to examine associations between organizational and patient characteristics and adoption. Method: The study used interview data from a nationally representative sample of 307 U.S. SUD treatment programs to examine adoption and implementation of injectable naltrexone. Results: Thirteen percent of programs used injectable naltrexone for AUD, and 3% of programs used it for opioid use disorder. Every treatment program that offered injectable naltrexone to its patients used it in conjunction with psychosocial treatment, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy. Multivariate logistic regression results indicated that adoption was positively associated with the provision of wraparound services, the percentage of privately insured patients, and the presence of inpatient detoxifi cation services. For-profi t status and offering inpatient services were negatively associated with adoption. Within adopting programs, an average of 4.1% of AUD patients and 7.1% of patients with opioid use disorder were currently receiving the medication, despite clinical directors' reports of positive patient outcomes, particularly for relapsers and for those who had been noncompliant with other medications. Cost was a signifi cant issue for the majority of adopting organizations. Conclusions: The rate of adoption of injectable naltrexone in U.S. treatment programs remains limited. Researchers should continue to examine patient, organizational, and external characteristics associated with the adoption and implementation of injectable naltrexone over time. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 76, 143-151, 2015)

show abstract

Medication assisted treatment in US drug courts: Results from a nationwide survey of availability, barriers and attitudes

Cited by 34 publications

References 32 publications

Why It's Inappropriate Not to Treat Incarcerated Patients with Opioid Agonist Therapy

Why It's Inappropriate Not to Treat Incarcerated Patients with Opioid Agonist Therapy

A Review of Opportunities to Improve the Health of People Involved in the Criminal Justice System in the United States

Adoption of Injectable Naltrexone in U.S. Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About