The relationship between take-away methadone policies and methadone diversion

• Published in: Drug and alcohol review 2005-07, Vol.24 (4), p.347-352
• Main Authors: Ritter, Alison, Di Natale, Richard
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Australia - epidemiology; Catchment Area (Health); diversion; Diversion schemes; Drug Abuse; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug dependency; Drugs (Pharmaceuticals); Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Intravenous drug addiction; Legislation, Drug; Methadone; Methadone - administration & dosage; methadone injecting; Methadone injectioning; Methadone Maintenance; Methadone maintenance treatment; methadone take-away policy; Policy Analysis; Policy Making; Prevalence; Social Control Policies - legislation & jurisprudence; Statistics; Substance-Related Disorders - epidemiology; Substance-Related Disorders - prevention & control; Substance-Related Disorders - rehabilitation; Surveys; Unsupervised methadone dosing
• ISSN: 0959-5236; 1465-3362
• 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. [Ritter A, Di Natale R. The relationship between take-away methadone policies and methadone diversion. Drug Alcohol Rev 2005;24:347 - 352]