Table 2.
Treatment Outcomes
| BUP (n=60) | Methadone (n=56) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completed treatment in jail | 82% | 75% | ns |
| Reported to assigned treatment modality after releasea | 48% | 14% | <.001 |
| Intended to continue treatment after releaseb | 93% | 44% | <.001 |
| Showed at a medication-assisted treatment provider after release | 48% | 23%c | <.005 |
| Re-incarceration at Rikers | 40% | 50% | ns |
| 3-Month Follow-up Interview (self-reports): | BUP (n=43) | Methadone (n=38) | P |
| Heroin or non-prescribed opioid use, last 30 days | Mean = 13.7 SD = 14.3 |
Mean = 14.4 SD = 13.4 |
ns |
| Any heroin or non-prescribed opioid use after release | 53% | 66% | ns |
| Arrested after releasec | Mean = .69 SD = .95 |
Mean = .71 SD = .77 |
ns |
| Arrested for a property crimed | 26% | 18% | ns |
| Arrested for drug possessiond | 14% | 24% | ns |
| Arrested for a violent crimed | 0% | 0% | ns |
a
Seven of the 60 BUP subjects were not referred to a specific community buprenorphine provider due to administrative miscommunication.
b
Three subjects did not answer this question.
c
Five methadone-assigned subjects showed at one of the buprenorphine providers.
d
BUP (n=42); one subject responded “don’t know” to arrest question.
Note: All analyses were re-run with the baseline variable, “ever used buprenorphine,” as a control in OLS or logistic regression analyses. Originally significant associations between treatment condition and outcomes remained significant and originally non-significant associations remained non-significant.