Exploring the Daily Lives of People on Methadone Maintenance Treatment: An Occupational Perspective

Dyadic associations between relationship quality and risk of opioid use among couples receiving methadone for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Social relationships may serve as both protective factors and risk factors for opioid use (nonmedical prescription opioid or illicit opioid use) among patients receiving methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD). Yet little is known about how relationship quality is linked to outcomes among couples receiving methadone. We evaluated the links between relationship quality and risk of opioid use among couples in which both partners received methadone.

METHODS

Participants included 53 heterosexual married or cohabiting couples aged 18 and older who were drawn from two opioid treatment programs in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Both members of the couple completed a self-administered survey assessing their sociodemographic information, relationship and treatment characteristics, and risk of opioid use.

RESULTS

Roughly half of women (47.2%) and men (52.8%) had a moderate to high risk of nonmedical prescription opioid use and almost two-thirds (64.2%) had a moderate to high risk of street opioid use. Risk of street opioid use was highly correlated within couples. Actor-partner interdependence models revealed that when women reported higher positive relationship quality, they had a lower risk of nonmedical prescription opioid use and their partners had a lower risk of street opioid use. Negative relationship quality was not significantly linked to risk of opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

Couples in which both partners receive methadone for OUD may be at risk of return to use, and positive partner relationships may play a role in lowering this risk. Women's perceptions of relationship quality might be a particularly important target for clinical care and interventions.

Management of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: An Overview

It is important for nurses not working in the area of addictions to be informed of the diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder so that they may serve as a resource, educate others, and influence and refer individuals to seek treatment on the basis of best evidence. In this article, we provide an overview of the postscreening diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorders with an emphasis on medication-assisted treatment, starting with the definition of substance use disorder, tolerance, dependence, and addiction.

Barriers to progressing through a methadone maintenance treatment programme: perspectives of the clients in the Mid-West of Ireland's drug and alcohol services

Background

The ‘perfect’ journey through an Irish Methadone Maintenance Treatment Programme (MMTP) would have a client engage appropriately with all relevant services available to them, inclusive of psychiatry, counselling, out-reach support, nursing and psychology. Concurrently, a client would ideally adhere to their prescribed methadone-dosing regimen, until a client is stabilised allowing them to function optimally. At this point, a client should transfer to the GP community setting. Unfortunately, this fails to occur. To date, very few studies have specifically investigated the reasons why a cohort of clients remain ‘trapped’ in the high risk, specialist clinical setting.

Methods

Qualitative detailed semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 17 clients of one of Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE) Drug and Alcohol Services, entitled ‘HSE Mid-West Limerick Drug and Alcohol Service’. Each client had a severe Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and clients had spent on average 7.5 years engaging with the MMTP.

Results

Participants’ life journey prior to an OUD included Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and early exposure to illicit drug use. Shared life events resulting in their initiating and sustaining an OUD involved continuous hardship into adulthood, mental illness and concurrent benzodiazepine use disorder, often resulting in harrowing accounts of participants’ loneliness and lack of life purpose. Their living environments, an erroneous understanding of their illness and poor communication with allied health professionals further perpetuated their OUD. Positive factors influencing periods of abstinence were familial incentives and a belief in the efficacy of methadone. Clients own suggestions for improving their journeys included employing a multi-sectorial approach to managing OUD and educating themselves and others on opioid agonist treatments. If clients were not progressing appropriately, they themselves suggested enforcing a ‘time-limit’ on clients to engage with the programme or indeed for their treatment to be postponed.

Conclusions

To optimise the functioning of the MMTP, three tasks need to be fulfilled: 1) Reduce the incidences of ACEs, 2) Diagnose and treat clients with a dual diagnosis 3) Educate clients, their families, the public and allied health care professionals on all aspects of OUD. A cross- departmental, inter-governmental approach is needed to address opioid misuse as a societal issue as a whole.