Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
Published in: Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Opioid dependency rehabilitation with the opioid maintenance treatment programme - a qualitative study from the clients’ perspective

Authors: Arild Granerud, Helge Toft

Published in: Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) is the most widely used treatment for opioid dependence. The opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) programme represents an opportunity for people who are opioid users to minimize the many negative health and societal outcomes associated with opioid use through meeting the physiological need of their bodies for opioids. The purpose of this study is to shed some light on how clients in the Norwegian OMT programme see their level of influence on their own treatment.

Method

It is a qualitative enquiry using semi-structured interviews of seven OMT clients living in various locations in Norway. The analysis of the material utilized a grounded theory-inspired approach.

Results

This study show that the clients who were part of the OMT programme had better lives than people with untreated addictions did. However, the participants experienced having to play by the rules of the OMT programme if they wanted to have successful treatment. This resulted in varying degrees of dissatisfaction with the treatment.

Conclusions

The results indicated that the clients felt objectified and disenfranchised in the OMT programme, and points out the low level of influence on their own treatment felt by the OMT clients.
Literature
1.
Lossius K, Andresen NE. Håndbok i rusbehandling: til pasienter med moderat til alvorlig rusmiddelavhengighet. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk; 2012.
2.
Fullerton CA, Kim M, Thomas CP, Lyman DR, Montejano LB, Dougherty RH, et al. Medication-assisted treatment with methadone: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(2):146–57.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Dole Vp NM. A medical treatment for diacetylmorphine (heroin) addiction: A clinical trial with methadone hydrochloride. JAMA. 1965;193(8):646–50.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Skeie I. Somatic morbidity among dependent opioid users before, during and after opioid maintenance treatment. Longitudinal cohort studies of acute and subacute disease incidents. Oslo: University of Oslo; 2012.
7.
Hedrich D, Alves P, Farrell M, Stöver H, Møller L, Mayet S, et al. The effectiveness of opioid maintenance treatment in prison settings: a systematic review. Addiction. 2012;107(3):501–17.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Gutwinski S, Bald LK, Gallinat J, Heinz A, Bermpohl F. Why do Patients Stay in Opioid Maintenance Treatment. Subst Use Misuse. 2014;49(6):694–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Waal H et al. Statusrapport 2012. LAR som det vil bli fremover? Oslo: Senter for rus- og avhengighetsforskning, Universitetet i Oslo; 2013.
10.
Fabritius C. Substitutionsbehandling av opioidberoende - ett Helsingforsperspektiv. Fin Lakaresallsk Handl. 2012;172(2):40–4.
11.
12.
Mørland J. Neurobiologisk perspektiv på rus og avhengighet. In: Bramness, J. & Blindheim, M. Følelser og fornuft : festskrift til Helge Waal. Oslo: Senter for rus- og avhengighetsforskning - SERAF. 2010.
13.
Darke S, Sims J, McDonald S, Wickes W. Cognitive impairment among methadone maintenance patients. Addiction. 2000;95(5):687–95.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Whelan P, Remski K. Buprenorphine vs methadone treatment: A review of evidence in both developed and developing worlds. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2012;3(1):45–50.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
15.
Gjersing, L, Waal, H, Røislien, J, Gossop, M, Clausen, T. Variations in treatment organisation, practices and outcomes within the Norwegian Opioid Maintenance Treatment Programme. Norsk Epidemiologi. 2011;21(1):6.
16.
Bobrova N, Alcorn R, Rhodes T, Rughnikov I, Neifeld E, Power R, et al. Injection drug users’ perceptions of drug treatment services and attitudes toward substitution therapy: A qualitative study in three Russian cities. J Subst Abus Treat. 2007;33(4):373–8.CrossRef
17.
Pattersona S, Weavera T, Agathb K, Ruttera D, Albertc E, Crawforda M, et al. User involvement in efforts to improve the quality of drug misuse services in England: A national survey. Drugs. 2009;16(4):364–77.
18.
Joe GW, Simpson DD, Dansereau DF, Rowan-Szal GA. Relationships Between Counseling Rapport and Drug Abuse Treatment Outcomes. Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52(9):1223–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Rance J, Treloar C. “We are people too”: consumer participation and the potential transformation of therapeutic relations within drug treatment. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(1):30–6.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bell J. Quality improvement for methadone maintenance treatment. Subst Use Misuse. 2000;35:1735–56.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Deering DE, Sheridan J, Sellman JD, Adamson SJ, Pooley S, Robertson R, et al. Consumer and treatment provider perspectives on reducing barriers to opioid substitution treatment and improving treatment attractiveness. Addict Behav. 2011;36(6):636–42.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2006. DOI: 10.​1002/​14651858
23.
Poulton BC. User involvement in identifying health needs and shaping and evaluating services: is it being realised? J Adv Nurs. 1999;30(6):1289–96.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Sverdrup S. Brukermedvirkning i psykisk helsearbeid: sammenstilling av resultater fra fem prosjekter. Rapport 2007/2. Oslo: Diakonhjemmet Høgskole; 2007.
25.
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Care. Service user experience in adult mental health care. NICE Guidance on Improving the Experience of Care for People Using Adult NHS Mental Health Services. London: The British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists; 2012.
26.
Jenssen AG, Tronvoll IM, Fuglseth TE. Brukermedvirkning : likeverd og anerkjennelse. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 2012.
27.
Hvas AC, Thesen J. At styrke patientens egne kræfter og at modvirke undertrykkende kræfter: Empowerment i et medicinsk perspektiv. Ugeskr Laeger. 2002;164:5.
28.
Askheim OP, Starrin B. Empowerment : i teori og praksis. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk; 2007.
29.
Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of health: how people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Josey-Bass; 1987.
30.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967.
31.
Charmaz K. The Grounded Theory method: An explication and interpretation. In: Glasser BG, editor. More Grounded Theory methodology: A reader. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1994. p. 95–115.
32.
Willumsen E. Interprofessional collaboration in residential child care. Göteborg: Nordic School of Public Health; 2007.
33.
Polit B, Beck CT. Nursing research: Principles and methods. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkings; 2004.
34.
Hallberg LRM. Qualitative methods in public health research : theoretical foundations and practical examples. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2002.
35.
Magnusson A. Home care of persons with long-term mental illness. Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet; 2003.
36.
Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory : a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Introducing qualitative methods. London: Sage; 2006.
37.
Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data: a guide to the principles of qualitative research. Los Angeles: Sage; 2011.
38.
39.
Kastelic A, Dubajic G, Strbad E. Slow-release oral morphine for maintenance treatment of opioid addicts intolerant to methadone or with inadequate withdrawal suppression. Addiction. 2008;103(11):1837–46.CrossRefPubMed
40.
41.
Leppo A, Perälä R. User involvement in Finland: the hybrid of control and emancipation. J Health Organ Manag. 2009;23(3):359–71.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Askheim OP. Brukermedvirkning - kun for verdige trengende? Om brukermedvirkning på rusfeltet. Tidsskrift for psykisk helsearbeid. 2009;6(1):52–9.
43.
Antonovsky A. The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promot Int. 1996;11(1):8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Opioid dependency rehabilitation with the opioid maintenance treatment programme - a qualitative study from the clients’ perspective
Authors
Arild Granerud
Helge Toft
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1747-597X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0031-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 1/2015 Go to the issue

Short Report

Smoking cessation among transit workers: beliefs and perceptions among an at-risk occupational group

Research

Physicians discuss the risks of smoking with their patients, but seldom offer practical cessation support

Research

Doping knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Ugandan athletes’: a cross-sectional study

Research

Internal consistency and measurement equivalence of the cannabis screening questions on the paper-and-pencil face-to-face ASSIST versus the online instrument

Methodology

A scoping study of cultural interventions to treat addictions in Indigenous populations: methods, strategies and insights from a Two-Eyed Seeing approach

Commentary

Assessing success—a commentary on the necessity of outcomes measures