988368
پنجشنبه 1 آذر 1403
دوره 15، شماره 3 - ( September 1396 )
جلد 15 شماره 3 صفحات 298-293 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sami S, Effatpanah M, Moradi A, Massah O. Matrix Model as an Intensive Rehabilitation in Three Methadone Services in Iran. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal 2017; 15 (3) :293-298
URL: http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-782-fa.html
URL: http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-782-fa.html
Matrix Model as an Intensive Rehabilitation in Three Methadone Services in Iran. مجله انگلیسی زبان توانبخشی. 1396; 15 (3) :293-298
چکیده: (6104 مشاهده)
Objectives: The Matrix Model is used for MA dependence in methadone services in Iran, the most populated Persian Gulf country. However, there are no studies of the efficacy of the Matrix Model for MA dependence while in treatment. The present study reports on the efficacy of sixteen weeks of the Matrix Model for MA abstinence and general health.
Methods: There were MA-dependent male (n=30) and female (n=30) patients in the study sites whom received the Matrix Model. The sites included three large methadone clinics in Tehran, Iran during 2015. The Persian versions of the Time Line Follow Back (TLFB) and the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) were completed by each participant at baseline and treatment weeks of four, ten and sixteen. Abstinence from MA was confirmed on the TLFB and with doing urinalyses at the same time.
Results: All subjects were daily MA users on the TLFB at baseline. General health was poor among all subjects at baseline. There was no reported subject attrition at baseline. But, ten subjects left the Matrix treatment before the end of week nine and 21 subjects left the Matrix treatment before the end of week 13. At week 4, only 20% of the subjects were abstinent from MA. At week ten, 35% of the subjects were abstinent from MA while at week 16, 65% of the subjects were abstinent from MA. The Matrix Model led to an increased rate of abstinence from MA (P<0.001) at week 16. Those who completed the treatment were more likely to report improved general health (P<0.05) than those who did not at week 16.
Discussion: The study indicated that the Matrix Model significantly increased the rate of abstinence from MA. But, at week sixteen, subject attrition was high. This issue demands further research.
Methods: There were MA-dependent male (n=30) and female (n=30) patients in the study sites whom received the Matrix Model. The sites included three large methadone clinics in Tehran, Iran during 2015. The Persian versions of the Time Line Follow Back (TLFB) and the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) were completed by each participant at baseline and treatment weeks of four, ten and sixteen. Abstinence from MA was confirmed on the TLFB and with doing urinalyses at the same time.
Results: All subjects were daily MA users on the TLFB at baseline. General health was poor among all subjects at baseline. There was no reported subject attrition at baseline. But, ten subjects left the Matrix treatment before the end of week nine and 21 subjects left the Matrix treatment before the end of week 13. At week 4, only 20% of the subjects were abstinent from MA. At week ten, 35% of the subjects were abstinent from MA while at week 16, 65% of the subjects were abstinent from MA. The Matrix Model led to an increased rate of abstinence from MA (P<0.001) at week 16. Those who completed the treatment were more likely to report improved general health (P<0.05) than those who did not at week 16.
Discussion: The study indicated that the Matrix Model significantly increased the rate of abstinence from MA. But, at week sixteen, subject attrition was high. This issue demands further research.
نوع مقاله: گزارش کوتاه |
موضوع مقاله:
مطالعات اعتیاد
دریافت: 1395/7/13 | پذیرش: 1395/9/27 | انتشار: 1396/6/15
دریافت: 1395/7/13 | پذیرش: 1395/9/27 | انتشار: 1396/6/15
فهرست منابع
1. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. World Drug Report 2004. Vienna: United Nations Publications; 2004.
2. Shadloo B, Amin Esmaeili M, Haft-Baradaran M, Noroozi A, Ghorban Jahromi R, Rahimi-Movaghar A. Use of amphetamine-type stimulants in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2004-2015: A review. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. 2017; 23(3):245-56. PMID: 28493273 [DOI:10.26719/2017.23.3.245] [PMID]
3. Alam Mehrjerdi Z, Abarashi Z, Noroozi A, Arshad L, Zarghami M. Correlates of shared methamphetamine injection among methamphetamine injecting treatment seekers: The first report from Iran. International Journal of STD & AIDS. 2013; 25(6):420–7. doi: 10.1177/0956462413512806 [DOI:10.1177/0956462413512806]
4. Huber A, Ling W, Shoptaw S, Gulati V, Brethen P, Rawson R. Integrating treatments for methamphetamine abuse: A psycho-social perspective. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 1997; 16(4):41–50. doi: 10.1080/10550889709511142 [DOI:10.1080/10550889709511142]
5. Rawson RA, Shoptaw SJ, Obert JL, McCann MJ, Hasson AL, Marinelli Casey PJ, et al. An intensive outpatient approach for co-caine abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 1995; 12(2):117–27. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(94)00080-b [DOI:10.1016/0740-5472(94)00080-B]
6. Rawson RA, Huber A, McCann M, Shoptaw S, Farabee D, Reiber C, et al. A comparison of contingency management and cog-nitive behavioral approaches during methadone maintenance treatment for cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychia-try. 2002; 59(9):817. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.59.9.817 [DOI:10.1001/archpsyc.59.9.817]
7. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
8. Sobell LC, Sobell MB, Buchan G, Cleland PA, Fedoroff I, Leo GI. The reliability of the Time Line Follow Back method applied to drug, cigarette, and cannabis use. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Advancement of Be-havior Therapy. 1996 November 3-5; New York, United States.
9. Khosravi A, Mousavi SA, Chaman R, Kish MS, Ashrafi E, Khalili M, et al. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the World Health Organization-five well-being index. International Journal of Health Studies. 2015; 1(1):17. doi: 10.22100/ijhs.v1i1.24
10. Ghasemnezhad S, Ghasemian D, Gheytarani B, Ghorbani F, Ghahari S. The effectiveness of Matrix treatment to relapse preven-tion and increase self efficacy in people withdrawing methamphetamine. International Journal of Medical Research and Health Sciences. 2016; 5(8):340-5.
11. Rawson RA, Marinelli-Casey P, Anglin MD, Dickow A, Frazier Y, Gallagher C, et al. A multi-site comparison of psychosocial approaches for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence. Addiction. 2004; 99(6):708–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00707.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00707.x]
12. Buxton JA, Dove NA. The burden and management of crystal meth use. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2008; 178(12):1537–9. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.071234 [DOI:10.1503/cmaj.071234]
13. Magidson JF, Gouse H, Burnhams W, Wu CYY, Myers B, Joska JA, et al. Beyond methamphetamine: Documenting the imple-mentation of the Matrix model of substance use treatment for opioid users in a South African setting. Addictive Behaviors. 2017; 66:132–7. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.11.014 [DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.11.014]
14. Hill R. Evidence-based practices for treatment of methamphetamine dependency: A review. Guelph: Community Engaged Scholarship Institute; 2015.
