Abstract
Introduction
Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) services may reduce the risk of HIV transmission if patients completely adhere to the treatment. Identifying adherence patterns and potential related factors is vital for the sustainability of MMT program in Vietnam. This study examined social and structural factors associated with adherence to MMT among patients in different service delivery models.
Materials and methods
A total of 510 patients at three MMT clinics in Hanoi were interviewed. Measures of self-reported adherence included the number of missed doses in the past 7 days and the level of adherence in the past 30 days using a visual analog scale (VAS) scoring from 0 (non-adherence) to 100 (perfect adherence). Multivariate regressions were employed to identify factors associated with non-adherence to MMT.
Results
A total of 17.7% of participants reported incomplete MMT adherence in the last 30 days and 8.3% reported missing a dose in the last seven days, respectively. Living with HIV/AIDS, poor self-care and usual activities, and disclosure of health issues to spouses or intimate partners were associated with non-adherence. Those patients with pain or depression were more likely to report better adherence. Disclosing health status to spouse/partner increased the risk of incomplete adherence, while disclosing to friends reduced the number of missed dose in the last seven days. Patients attending clinics with comprehensive services had a lower VAS score of adherence compared to those enrolling in clinics with only MMT and general health care.
Conclusions
Sustaining the compliance of patients to MMT is principal in the rapid expansion of this service in Vietnam. It is necessary to address the complexity of health care demands of drug users, their difficulties to be rehabilitated into workforce and society, and the stigmatization to maximize the outcomes of MMT program.
Introduction
Globally, methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is recognized as an essential and cost-effective substitution therapy for opioid dependent individuals [1–3]. MMT is efficacious in reducing drug use-related consequences and improving health and socioeconomic status of drug users [1,2,4–6]. In injection-driven HIV epidemics, the expansion of MMT services not only reduced the risk of HIV transmission, but also supported patients’ access, utilization and outcomes of other HIV-related services [7–9]. Literature has shown that MMT clinics could be strategic sites in providing directly administered antiretroviral therapy models for HIV-positive drug users [10]. Given its benefits, the expansion of MMT is a vital component of global HIV/AIDS prevention strategies [3,11].
MMT is a long-term and slow-onset substitution therapy, which needs complete medication adherence to achieve optimal outcomes [12,13]. The current practice in Vietnam requires patients to visit clinic daily and take medication under strict supervisions of health staff. This practice is also applied in other South Asia countries such as Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Maldives [14], or in some European countries and Canada [15,16]. In China, in addition to the traditional delivery model, the Government implements a mobile service model to provide methadone for patients in rural and remote areas [17].
Ensuring patients’ adherence has increasingly challenged HIV programs in many settings. In some countries such as China, Vietnam and Malaysia, where concurrent epidemics of HIV and substance abuse exists, it has been well documented that patients’ adherence to MMT was not optimal and the retention rate was just 40% over 3 years [18–20]. In developed settings, a growing body of evidence has shown the poor adherence among patients receiving MMT. In the United States, studies have found 17% of patients did not adhere the therapy, and in Canada this number has been reported to be 16% [21,22]. Other observations in the United Kingdom, France, and Australia indicated high rates of non-adherence at 42.0%; 65.2%, and 33%, respectively [19,23–25].
Several studies have documented individual and biological factors which were associated with non-adherence to MMT services. They included lower socioeconomic status, lack of social support, discrimination and insufficient methadone doses [26–30]. Meanwhile, some structural barriers were also recognized to predict non-adherence to MMT including patients’ satisfaction with healthcare services, poverty, jobs and housing, in both developed and developing countries [19,23,24,28,31–33]. However, these factors varied across study settings, and very few ones have focused on the provision of MMT in relation to other HIV services.
Vietnam is one among those countries with a strong political will to implement MMT program and halt the spread of HIV epidemics in drug-using populations. Since its first introduction in 2008, 251 MMT clinics have been established and providing treatment for over 46,000 patients [34]. The Vietnam’s MMT program has been proved to effectively contribute to the control and prevention of HIV/AIDS [35–37]. However, poor medication adherence poses a great challenge to health managers in the rapid expansion of MMT services in Vietnam. A longitudinal study in Hai Phong and Ho Chi Minh cities in Vietnam showed that after 24 months of treatment, 41.4% patients reported missing dose for 1–2 days [18]. Another study conducted in a mountainous area indicated that 65.6% patients had sub-optimal adherence to MMT [38].
Hanoi is a capital of Vietnam, where is an HIV/AIDS epicenter with more than 18,000 people living with HIV [39] and about 5,000 patients participating in the MMT program [34]. Evidence about the adherence pattern among MMT patients in this city would contribute substantially to the development of strategies to maximize the outcomes of MMT program in Vietnam. Therefore, this study assessed patients’ adherence to MMT services and examined its social and structural determinants.
Material and methods
Study design and setting
We conducted a facility-based cross-sectional survey in Hanoi from April to August 2013. We selected clinics based on following criteria: 1) Currently providing the MMT service, and 2) Having at least 100 patients taking MMT during data collection. Among six eligible facilities, we randomly chose three clinics including: Tu Liem district health center (DHC), Long Bien DHC and Ha Dong polyclinic. The features of these clinics are described in Table 1.
Table 1. Study settings and sample size.
| Level | Settings | Site Name | Type of services | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| District (urban) | Tu Liem District | District Health Centre | MMT+ HCT + ART + GH* | 201 |
| District (urban) | Long Bien District | District Health Centre | MMT+ HCT + ART + GH* | 99 |
| District (urban) | Ha Dong District | Regional Polyclinic | MMT+ GH* | 210 |
* MMT: Methadone maintenance treatment; HCT: HIV counseling and testing; ART: antiretroviral therapy; GH: General health care
Sample size and sampling method
We used a convenience sampling technique to recruit patients. All patients at these selected clinics were offered invitations to participate in the study if they were receiving MMT at the selected clinics, 18 years old or above, and attended clinics during the study period. Finally, data from 510 patients were used for analysis (response rate 80–90% across clinics).
Measures and instruments
Data were obtained via face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire. A private room was employed for the interviews to assure the confidentiality of patients. Interviewers were students in Master of Public Health program at Hanoi Medical University, under the supervision of experts in the field of substance abuse. Each interview was performed in 15–20 minutes.
The main outcome of this study was the self-reported medication adherence. Patients were asked to report their adherence in the last seven days by using the question: “How many days did you miss dose in the last seven days?”. Optimal adherence was detected when patients did not miss any dose. Moreover, a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) was also employed to detect patients’ adherence in the last 30 days, with a score range from 0 “complete non-adherence” to 100 “perfect adherence”. These approaches had been successfully applied in a previous study [38]. While the number of missed doses in the past 7 days is an indicator to describe recent adherence, the VAS score is a general measure that reflects the overall adherence over a period of treatment. These two indicators were supplementary to each other. We also asked patients to report their reasons if they did not adhere the treatment.
In this study, based on previous literatures, we measured social and structural factors as below:
Socioeconomic status
We collected socio-demographic status of patients, including: age, gender, education, marital status and employment status.
Social factors
Health status. We applied a well-validated tool namely EuroQol—five dimensions–five levels (EQ-5D-5L), which evaluated five components: Mobility, Self-care, Usual activities, Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression. Each domain had five response levels from no problem to extreme problems. This instrument was used previously in the context of Vietnam [5,38,40–49].
Stigmatization. We investigated the drug use-related stigma among patients by using the instrument that was used and validated elsewhere [50,51]. We evaluated four aspects of stigma including: (1) Blame/Judgement, (2) Shame, (3) Discrimination in several settings (work place, health care services, family, and community), (4) Disclosure of addiction or health status. The short description of this instrument can be found in our previous publications [50,51]. In short, patients were asked to report whether they suffered any of these kinds of stigma in the last 30 days.
Structural factors
Satisfaction. We also employed an instrument entitled the Satisfaction with HIV/AIDS Treatment Interview Scale (SATIS), which was used and validated previously in Vietnam to measure the satisfaction of patients to the HIV-related services such as ART and MMT [52,53]. Overall, the SATIS has ten items with a score range from 0 “complete dissatisfaction” to 10 “complete satisfaction”. There are three sub-domains namely: “Services quality and convenience”, “Capacity health workers & responsiveness” and “Inter-professional care”. The score of each sub-domain was calculated by averaging the score of all items in the sub-domains [52,53].
Statistical analysis
STATA software version 12.0 (Stata Corp. LP, College Station, United States of America) was used to analyze data. A p-value <0.05 was used to detect statistical significance. T-test, Mann-Whitney test, Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used to assess the differences of variables between adherence and non-adherence groups. We utilized multivariate Logistic, Tobit and Zero-inflated Poisson regressions to identify factors associated with MMT adherence among patients. A step-wise forward selection strategy was used with a p-value of <0.2 as a threshold of the log-likelihood ratio test to select variables.
Ethical consideration
All study materials were approved by the IRB of the Vietnam Authority of HIV/AIDS Control. Data collection procedures were also approved by the directors of each of the three MMT clinics included in the study. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Results
Among 510 patients, the mean age was 36.6 (SD = 7.7) years old. Most of them were male (98.4%), attaining less than high school education (53.7%) and living with their spouse/partners (70.0%). The majority of respondents were self-employed (52.7%) or unemployed (26.6%). Compared with the incomplete adherence group, more respondents in the complete adherence group had under high school education (56.2% vs 41.3%) (p = 0.03). We did not find any differences in other socioeconomic and health status factors (Table 2).
Table 2. Medication adherence by socioeconomic characteristics among MMT patients.
| Characteristics | Complete adherence | Incomplete adherence | Total | OR (95%CI) |
p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |||
| Total | 417 | 82.2 | 90 | 17.8 | 507 | 100.0 | ||
| Age (years), mean, SD | 36.8 | 7.6 | 35.5 | 7.8 | 36.6 | 7.7 | 0.98 (0.95–1.01) | 0.05 |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | 411 | 98.3 | 91 | 98.9 | 502 | 98.4 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.56 |
| Female | 7 | 1.7 | 1 | 1.1 | 8 | 1.6 | 0.65 (0.08–5.31) | |
| Education | ||||||||
| < High school | 235 | 56.2 | 38 | 41.3 | 273 | 53.5 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.03 |
| High school | 155 | 37.1 | 45 | 48.9 | 200 | 39.2 | 1.80 (1.11–2.89) | |
| > High school | 28 | 6.7 | 9 | 9.8 | 37 | 7.3 | 1.99 (0.87–4.54) | |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Single | 83 | 19.9 | 23 | 25.0 | 106 | 20.8 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.17 |
| Live with spouse/partner | 294 | 70.3 | 65 | 70.7 | 359 | 70.4 | 0.80 (0.47–1.36) | |
| Divorced/Separate/Widow | 41 | 9.8 | 4 | 4.3 | 45 | 8.8 | 0.35 (0.11–1.09) | |
| Employment | ||||||||
| Unemployed | 112 | 26.8 | 23 | 25.0 | 135 | 26.5 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.35 |
| Freelancer | 222 | 53.0 | 47 | 51.1 | 269 | 52.8 | 1.03 (0.60–1.78) | |
| Stable jobs | 42 | 10.1 | 7 | 7.6 | 49 | 9.6 | 0.81 (0.32–2.03) | |
| Other jobs | 42 | 10.1 | 15 | 16.3 | 57 | 11.2 | 1.74 (0.83–3.65) | |
OR: Odds ratio; ref: reference
Table 3 presents the adherence patterns among respondents. About 91.7% patients did not miss dose in the last seven days and 82.3% reported complete adherence in the last 30 days. Having busy work was the primary reason for non-adherence with 57.1%, following by not remembering to take doses (11.9%).
Table 3. Medication adherence among MMT patients.
| n | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Missed dose in 1 week | ||
| Not missed | 465 | 91.7 |
| Missed | 42 | 8.3 |
| Complete adherence (VAS*) in the last 30 days | ||
| Complete Adherence | 417 | 82.2 |
| Incomplete Adherence | 90 | 17.8 |
| Reason of non-adherence (n = 42) | ||
| Long distance from home | 3 | 7.1 |
| Forget | 5 | 11.9 |
| Busy work | 24 | 57.1 |
| Having illness | 3 | 7.1 |
| Unknow | 3 | 7.1 |
| Others | 3 | 7.1 |
| Mean | SD | |
| VAS* score for adherence | 92.5 | 24.2 |
* VAS: Visual analogue scale.
Table 4 indicates that in comparison with the incomplete adherence group, a lower proportion of patients had usual activity problems in the complete adherence group (p = 0.04). Moreover, a larger proportion of incomplete adherers disclosed health status to their spouse/partner compared to that of complete adherers (p = 0.04). Meanwhile, all other factors were not found to be significantly different between the complete and incomplete adherence groups.
Table 4. Differences of social factors between adherence and non-adherence among MMT patients.
| Characteristics | Complete adherence | Incomplete adherence | Total | OR a (95%CI) |
p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | N | % | |||
| HIV positive | 32 | 7.7 | 13 | 14.1 | 45 | 8.8 | 1.98 (1.00–3.95) | 0.13 |
| Health status | ||||||||
| Having problems in mobility | 22 | 5.3 | 8 | 8.7 | 30 | 5.9 | 1.71 (0.74–3.98) | 0.21 |
| Having problems in self-care | 14 | 3.4 | 5 | 5.4 | 19 | 3.7 | 1.66 (0.58–4.73) | 0.34 |
| Having problems in usual activities | 13 | 3.1 | 7 | 7.6 | 20 | 3.9 | 2.57 (0.99–6.62) | 0.04 |
| Pain or Discomfort | 69 | 16.5 | 10 | 10.9 | 79 | 15.5 | 0.62 (0.30–1.25) | 0.18 |
| Anxiety or Depression | 73 | 17.5 | 11 | 12.0 | 84 | 16.5 | 0.64 (0.33–1.26) | 0.20 |
| Feeling blame/judge | 54 | 13.0 | 13 | 14.3 | 67 | 13.2 | 1.12 (0.58–2.15) | 0.74 |
| Feeling shame | 48 | 11.6 | 12 | 13.3 | 60 | 11.9 | 1.17 (0.60–2.31) | 0.64 |
| Feeling discrimination in | ||||||||
| Workplace | 3 | 0.7 | 1 | 1.1 | 4 | 0.8 | 1.52 (0.16–14.78) | 0.72 |
| Healthcare service | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.1 | 3 | 0.6 | 2.29 (0.21–25.48) | 0.49 |
| Family | 4 | 1.0 | 2 | 2.2 | 6 | 1.2 | 2.30 (0.41–12.75) | 0.33 |
| Community | 30 | 7.2 | 8 | 8.7 | 38 | 7.5 | 1.23 (0.55–2.78) | 0.62 |
| Disclose health status to | ||||||||
| Spouse/Partner | 251 | 60.1 | 66 | 71.7 | 317 | 62.2 | 1.69 (1.03–2.77) | 0.04 |
| Parents | 205 | 49.0 | 53 | 57.6 | 258 | 50.6 | 1.41 (0.90–2.23) | 0.14 |
| Other relatives | 130 | 31.1 | 26 | 28.3 | 156 | 30.6 | 0.87 (0.53–1.44) | 0.59 |
| Friends | 115 | 27.5 | 28 | 30.4 | 143 | 28.0 | 1.15 (0.70–1.89) | 0.57 |
| Health staffs | 171 | 40.9 | 44 | 47.8 | 215 | 42.2 | 1.32 (0.84–2.08) | 0.22 |
| Peers | 54 | 12.9 | 17 | 18.5 | 71 | 13.9 | 1.53 (0.84–2.78) | 0.16 |
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
| Duration of MMT (month) | 20.4 | 11.9 | 22.2 | 12.0 | 20.7 | 11.8 | 1.01 (0.99–1.03) | 0.14 |
OR: Odds ratio;
a Reference group: Not have these health states or experience any stigmatizations
Table 5 indicates that there was not any difference found between the adherence and non-adherence groups regarding structural factors such as MMT delivery models and the satisfaction of patients.
Table 5. Differences of structural factors between adherence and non-adherence among MMT patients.
| Characteristics | Complete adherence | Incomplete adherence | Total | OR (95%CI) |
p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |||
| MMT delivery models | ||||||||
| MMT+ HCT + ART + GH* | 236 | 56.6 | 61 | 67.8 | 297 | 58.6 | 1.00 (ref) | 0.051 |
| MMT+ GH* | 181 | 43.4 | 29 | 32.2 | 210 | 41.4 | 1.61 (0.99–2.61) | |
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
| Satisfaction with services | ||||||||
| Services quality and convenience | 9.2 | 1.1 | 9.3 | 0.99 | 9.25 | 1.07 | 1.09 (0.87–1.38) | 0.24 |
| Capacity health workers & responsiveness | 9.2 | 1.3 | 9.4 | 1.03 | 9.24 | 1.26 | 1.10 (0.89–1.35) | 0.24 |
| Inter-professional care | 9.3 | 1.1 | 9.4 | 0.98 | 9.29 | 1.10 | 1.09 (0.87–1.38) | 0.28 |
| Overall SATIS Score | 9.3 | 1.1 | 9.35 | 0.97 | 9.26 | 1.07 | 1.11 (0.87–1.41) | 0.30 |
* MMT: Methadone maintenance treatment; HCT: HIV counseling and testing; ART: antiretroviral therapy; GH: General health care; OR: Odds ratio; ref: reference
Table 6 shows the results of reduced multivariate regressions. Higher age, having high school degree, HIV positive and disclosing health status to spouse/partner were more likely to increase the number of missed doses. Meanwhile, people having anxiety/depression and disclosing health status to friends had a lower number of missed doses than others. In addition, higher age (OR = 0.94; 95%CI = 0.90–0.99) were associated with lower likelihood of missing dose, while having problems in self-care was a significant risk factor for missing dose (OR = 4.47; 95%CI = 1.31–15.23).
Table 6. Multivariate regressions to identify factors associated with non-adherence among MMT patients.
| No. of missed dose in the last 7 days | Ever missed dose in the last 7 days | VAS Score of adherence | Incomplete adherence (VAS) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | 95%CI | OR | 95% CI | Coef. | 95%CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Age (years) | 0.07*** | 0.03; 0.10 | 0.94** | 0.89; 0.99 | 0.97* | 0.94; 1.01 | ||
| Education (vs < High school) | ||||||||
| High school | 0.77** | 0.12; 1.41 | -27.39* | -55.13; 0.36 | 1.78** | 1.08; 2.95 | ||
| > High school | 0.21 | -0.77; 1.19 | -48.82* | -100.03; 2.38 | 1.86 | 0.76; 4.54 | ||
| Marital status (vs Single) | ||||||||
| Divorce/Separate/Widow | -0.25 | -1.14; 0.64 | 0.23 | 0.03; 1.76 | 60.96* | -3.35; 125.27 | 0.40 | 0.12; 1.39 |
| Occupation (vs Unemployed) | ||||||||
| Stable jobs | -0.48 | -1.10; 0.13 | 42.26 | -9.40; 93.93 | ||||
| HIV status (vs Negative) | ||||||||
| Positive | 2.47*** | 1.33; 3.61 | -42.05* | -85.52; 1.42 | 1.89 | 0.86; 4.17 | ||
| Unknown | 1.01* | -0.17; 2.18 | ||||||
| Having problems in self-care (Yes vs No) | 4.94*** | 1.54; 15.80 | ||||||
| Having problems in usual activities (Yes vs No) | -69.46** | -135.10; -3.81 | 3.74** | 1.18; 11.81 | ||||
| Pain/Discomfort (Yes vs No) | 0.82* | -0.01; 1.64 | 60.08** | 13.67; 106.49 | 0.43** | 0.18; 1.00 | ||
| Anxiety/Depression (Yes vs No) | -2.22*** | -3.44; -1.00 | ||||||
| Feeling discrimination in workplace (Yes vs No) | 5.48 | 0.48; 62.85 | ||||||
| Feeling discrimination in health service (Yes vs No) | 13.31* | 0.81; 219.13 | ||||||
| Feeling discrimination in community (Yes vs No) | -0.45 | -1.92; 1.01 | ||||||
| Disclose health status to Spouse/Partner (Yes vs No) | 1.79*** | 0.85; 2.74 | -26.11* | -57.15; 4.94 | 1.90** | 1.07; 3.37 | ||
| Disclose health status to Other relatives (Yes vs No) | 0.67 | 0.37; 1.23 | ||||||
| Disclose health status to Friends (Yes vs No) | -0.90** | -1.62; -0.18 | ||||||
| Disclose health status to Health staffs (Yes vs No) | -19.31 | -47.29; 8.68 | ||||||
| Disclose health status to Peers (Yes vs No) | -1.21 | -3.07; 0.65 | 0.34 | 0.08; 1.49 | 1.70 | 0.82; 3.52 | ||
| MMT delivery models (MMT+HTC+ART+GH vs MMT+GH) | 0.76* | -0.14; 1.65 | 1.86* | 0.89; 3.88 | -29.03** | -56.81; -1.24 | 1.55* | 0.93; 2.60 |
| Services quality and convenience | -0.57* | -1.23; 0.10 | 0.61 | 0.32; 1.15 | ||||
| Capacity health workers & responsiveness | 0.80* | -0.13; 1.74 | 1.73* | 0.92; 3.25 | -11.89* | -24.23; 0.46 | ||
| Inter-professional care | 0.28 | -0.37; 0.93 | ||||||
*** p<0.01.
** p<0.05.
* p<0.1.
Regarding the VAS score of adherence, patients having pain/discomfort had higher score of adherence than those not suffering. Having problems in usual activities and attending clinics with full services (MMT+ART+HTC+GH) were negatively associated with the VAS score of adherence. People having high school education, having problems in usual activities and disclosing health status to spouse/partner were more likely to incompletely adhere the medication, while respondents having pain/discomfort were less likely to be incomplete adherers.
Discussion
Although complete adherence to MMT is principal in ensuring drug abstinence, we have found that over one sixth of the study sample reported incomplete adherence. This was driven by the complexity of health care demands and the difficulties constraining drug users in the reintegration into workforce and society.
The proportion of MMT non-adherence in this study (17.8%) was lower than observations in other studies across diverse settings, such as in France (42,0%) [24]; the United Kingdom (65.2%) [23]; Australia (33.0%) [25] and China (36.3% to 88.2%) [19,31]. We would acknowledge the potential reason for this difference that we measured adherence using missed doses in the past 7 days and overall VAS scores for the past 30 days; meanwhile, other researchers assessed adherence over 1, 3 and 12 months. In addition, some patients may over-report the level of adherence using VAS while ignoring doses they have missed if it was too few.
Comparing to the previous study in Vietnam, the proportion of 8.3% patients missed doses in the past seven days in our observation is lower than that in a mountainous setting in Vietnam (10%) [38]. Urban patients probably access more easily to MMT clinics than those with geolocation barriers. Noticeably, in mountainous settings, the 3-month non-adherence rate was 65.6% and increased over the course of MMT [38]. Therefore, the adherence monitoring and the provision of support and counseling should be maintained to reassure the MMT retention and complete adherence of the patients [18,38].
In this study, higher age was found to be associated with better treatment adherence, while high education was related to the incomplete adherence. These results are similar to other previous findings [19,54,55]. Besides, patients having problems in self-care had a higher chance to be non-adherers. Noteworthy is that poor self-care might restrict the functional capacity of patients and reduce the effort to visit the clinic for taking medicine [56]. Otherwise, patients having pain/discomfort were more likely to adhere the medication, which was contrary to the previous findings that having physical and psychological problems could decrease adherence [24,38]. Notably, the main reason for not adherence was having busy work (57.1%). Since most of the respondents were self-employed or worked for hire with daily wages, they have to manage their time and commitment to their work as well as to go to the clinic for MMT [19,57,58]. Poverty and job commitment have been described as major structural barriers for adherence to healthcare services in many settings. In this study, we enrich the literature by describing the concurrent impacts of job commitment and stigma to drug users. Having a job is very necessary for the patients by improving their social and economical status, but their physical healthcare was demanding the methadone medications daily. This is also an explanation that those with better health status will go for work and poorly adhered to MMT, while those with severer pain or depression issues were better adhering to the treatment.
Interestingly, we found that people who ever disclosed to their spouse/partner were more likely to report incomplete adherence, while patients disclosing their status to their friends were more likely to adhere the medication. Literatures emphasized the benefits of health status disclosure to medication adherence in various patient groups such as having more social support, less psychological distress and receiving timely coping strategies for their problems [30,59,60]. However, these advantages rely on how the patients interact with their societies [61,62]. If they had negative relationships, disclosure could lead to serious stigmatization and rejection, and eventually, negatively influence medication adherence [30]. Besides, only a few patients reported feeling stigma in their workplaces, families, health services or communities. Perhaps, patients who disclosed their health status to the spouse/partner could release the pressure on themselves regarding treatment, and tend to allow them skipping several doses without any concerns about clinical consequences [30,63]. It could also be the case that their spouse/ partner was also a drug abuser that make it more difficult for the patient to completely adhere to MMT.
When we investigated structural barriers such as MMT delivery models and the satisfaction of patients to the adherence, we only found that patients attending clinics delivering comprehensive services (MMT+ART+HCT+GH) had a lower VAS score of adherence compared to those enrolling in clinics with only MMT and GH. However, rather than the provision of services, this could be explained by potential interactions of ART and methadone, which was found to be related with lower methadone serum concentrations and adverse effects such as depression, insomnia and myalgias, facilitating the non-adherence among HIV(+) patients (as shown in multivariate regression) [64–66].
The findings of this study suggest some implications. First, the participation of patients’ spouse or partners has a central role in reminding patients to adhere the medication. Second, MMT clinics should be integrated with the general health care service in order to understand the needs of health care among patients and resolve timely during their treatment. Moreover, the provision of MMT program should be connected among clinics, which can help patients to access MMT in the nearest places where they feel convenient to take medication. Finally, developing early warning system involving both clinical and self-reported data to inform the adherence of patients might be helpful to improve the treatment outcome of MMT program.
There are several limitations in this study that should be recognized. First, using the cross-sectional design did not permit us to understand the causal associations between adherence and its determinants. Second, we only collected self-reported information, which might lead to recall bias [67]. Finally, our small sample size recruited by the convenience sampling method might limit the generalizability of this study to other MMT populations. Moreover, medication adherence is complicated to measure by self-reported data alone; therefore, a larger survey with more clinical, biomedical and behavioral information should be warranted in the future to provide the comprehensive view of this issue.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our study showed a low rate of non-adherence among MMT patients in a Vietnam metropolitan compared to other settings. Having stable jobs, improve the ability to engage in self-care, promote the role of spouse/partner and friends of patients, integrating MMT clinics with general health care and connecting clinics in the provision of MMT program could be potential solutions to enhance the adherence of MMT patients.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge supports of the Vietnam Authority of HIV/AIDS Control for the implementation of the study.
Data Availability
Data are owned by the Vietnam Authority of HIV/AIDS Control and protected by the Law of HIV/AIDS prevention and control; therefore, the dataset cannot be shared publicly. Requests for data can be sent to Dr. Phan Thi Thu Huong, Vice Director of the Vietnam Authority of HIV/AIDS Control (huongphanmoh@gmail.com). Other researchers can access these data in the same manner as the authors. The authors did not have any special access privileges that others would not have.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
References
- 1.Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Duong AT (2012) Cost-effectiveness of integrating methadone maintenance and antiretroviral treatment for HIV-positive drug users in Vietnam's injection-driven HIV epidemics. Drug Alcohol Depend 125 doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Duong AT, Do NT, Nguyen LT, Mills S, et al. (2012) Cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment for HIV-positive drug users in Vietnam. AIDS Care 24: 283–290. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2011.608420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Herget G (2005) Methadone and buprenorphine added to the WHO list of essential medicines. HIV AIDS Policy Law Rev 10: 23–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Tran BX, Nguyen LT (2013) Impact of methadone maintenance on health utility, health care utilization and expenditure in drug users with HIV/AIDS. Int J Drug Policy 24: e105–110. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Tran BX, Nguyen LH, Nong VM, Nguyen CT, Phan HT, Latkin CA (2016) Behavioral and quality-of-life outcomes in different service models for methadone maintenance treatment in Vietnam. Harm Reduct J 13: 4 doi: 10.1186/s12954-016-0091-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Duong AT, Nguyen LT, Vu PX, Mills S, et al. (2012) The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of Vietnam's methadone maintenance treatment programme in HIV prevention and treatment among injection drug users. Glob Public Health 7: 1080–1094. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2012.736259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wang H, Wolock TM, Carter A, Nguyen G, Kyu HH, Gakidou E, et al. Estimates of global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and mortality of HIV, 1980–2015: the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet HIV 3: e361–e387. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(16)30087-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Collaborators GRF (2016) Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388: 1659–1724. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31679-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kassebaum NJ, Arora M, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Brown J, Carter A, et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet 388: 1603–1658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lucas GM, Weidle PJ, Hader S, Moore RD (2004) Directly Administered Antiretroviral Therapy in an Urban Methadone Maintenance Clinic: A Nonrandomized Comparative Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases 38: S409–S413. doi: 10.1086/421405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kermode M, Crofts N, Kumar MS, Dorabjee J (2011) Opioid substitution therapy in resource-poor settings. Bull World Health Organ 89: 243 doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.086850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Greenwald MK (2002) Heroin craving and drug use in opioid-maintained volunteers: effects of methadone dose variations. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 10: 39–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wolff K (2002) Characterization of methadone overdose: clinical considerations and the scientific evidence. Ther Drug Monit 24: 457–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Rao R, Agrawal A, Kishore K, Ambekar A (2013) Delivery models of opioid agonist maintenance treatment in South Asia: a good beginning. Bull World Health Organ 91: 150–153. doi: 10.2471/BLT.12.111815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.WHO Office for Europe (2012) Practical Guidance Toolkit: How to implement and scale up opioid substitution therapy (OST) European Union.
- 16.Pharmacists OCo (2014) Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) and Dispensing Policy.
- 17.Zhao M (2015) Implementation of Methadone Maintenance Treatment in China In: el-Guebaly N, Carrà G, Galanter M, editors. Textbook of Addiction Treatment: International Perspectives. Milano: Springer Milan; pp. 531–542. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hoang TV, Ha TTT, Hoang TM, Nhu NT, Quoc NC, Tam NtM, et al. (2015) Impact of a methadone maintenance therapy pilot in Vietnam and its role in a scaled-up response. Harm Reduction Journal 12: 39 doi: 10.1186/s12954-015-0075-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Zhou K, Li H, Wei X, Li X, Zhuang G (2017) Medication Adherence in Patients Undergoing Methadone Maintenance Treatment in Xi'an, China. J Addict Med 11: 28–33. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Musa R. AZABaUAK (2012) Two-year outcomes of Methadone maintenance therapy at a clinic in Malaysia. Asia Pac J Public Health 24: 826 doi: 10.1177/1010539511404396 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Raffa JD, Grebely J, Tossonian H, Wong T, Viljoen M, Khara M, et al. The impact of ongoing illicit drug use on methadone adherence in illicit drug users receiving treatment for HIV in a directly observed therapy program. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 89: 306–309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lucas GM, Mullen BA, McCaul ME, Weidle PJ, Hader S, Moore RD (2007) Adherence, drug use, and treatment failure in a methadone-clinic-based program of directly administered antiretroviral therapy. AIDS Patient Care STDS 21: 564–574. doi: 10.1089/apc.2006.0192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Haskew M, Wolff K, Dunn J, Bearn J (2008) Patterns of adherence to oral methadone: implications for prescribers. J Subst Abuse Treat 35: 109–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.08.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Roux P, Lions C, Michel L, Cohen J, Mora M, Marcellin F, et al. (2014) Predictors of non-adherence to methadone maintenance treatment in opioid-dependent individuals: implications for clinicians. Curr Pharm Des 20: 4097–4105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Larance B (2012) Non-adherence in opioid substitution therapy in Australia: School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales [Google Scholar]
- 26.Latkin CA, Knowlton AR, Hoover D, Mandell W (1999) Drug Network Characteristics as a Predictor of Cessation of Drug Use Among Adult Injection Drug Users: A Prospective Study. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 25: 463–473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Milloy M, Marshall B, Kerr T, Buxton J, Rhodes T, Montaner J, et al. (2012) Social and structural factors associated with HIV disease progression among illicit drug users: A systematic review. Aids 26: 1049–1063. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835221cc [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Boyd J, Fast D, Hobbins M, McNeil R, Small W (2017) Social-structural factors influencing periods of injection cessation among marginalized youth who inject drugs in Vancouver, Canada: an ethno-epidemiological study. Harm Reduction Journal 14: 31 doi: 10.1186/s12954-017-0159-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Rao D, Kekwaletswe TC, Hosek S, Martinez J, Rodriguez F (2007) Stigma and social barriers to medication adherence with urban youth living with HIV. AIDS Care 19: 28–33. doi: 10.1080/09540120600652303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Rotzinger A, Locatelli I, Reymermier M, Amico S, Bugnon O, Cavassini M, et al. Association of disclosure of HIV status with medication adherence. Patient Education and Counseling 99: 1413–1420. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Shen J, Wang M, Wang X, Zhang G, Guo J, Li X, et al. (2016) Predictors of Poor Adherence to Methadone Maintenance Treatment in Yunnan Province, China. J Addict Med 10: 40–45. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lin C-K, Hung C-C, Peng C-Y, Chao E, Lee TS-H (2015) Factors Associated with Methadone Treatment Duration: A Cox Regression Analysis. PLOS ONE 10: e0123687 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wong KH, Lee SS, Lim WL, Low HK (2003) Adherence to methadone is associated with a lower level of HIV-related risk behaviors in drug users. J Subst Abuse Treat 24: 233–239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Control VAoHA (2016) The annual review of HIV/AIDS control and prevention in the first six months 2016 and action plan in the last six months in 2016. Hanoi. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Health VMo (2010) Decision No 3140/QD-BYT on Guideline for Substance abuse treatment using methadone. Hanoi. [Google Scholar]
- 36.National Committee for AIDS DaPPaC (2012) National Strategy on HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control toward 2020 and the vision to 2030. Hanoi. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Tran BX, Nguyen QL, Nguyen LH, Phan HTT, Le HT, Tran TD, et al. (2017) Expanding co-payment for methadone maintenance services in Vietnam: the importance of addressing health and socioeconomic inequalities. BMC Health Services Research 17: 480 doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2405-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Nguyen LH, Nguyen HTT, Nguyen HLT, Tran BX, Latkin CA (2017) Adherence to methadone maintenance treatment and associated factors among patients in Vietnamese mountainside areas. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 12: 31 doi: 10.1186/s13011-017-0115-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Control VAoHA (2015) The annual review of HIV/AIDS control and prevention in 2015 and action plan in 2016. Hanoi: Ministry of Health. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Tran BX, Nguyen LH, Nong VM, Nguyen CT (2016) Health status and health service utilization in remote and mountainous areas in Vietnam. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 14: 85 doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0485-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Tran BX, Nguyen LH, Nguyen LP, Nguyen CT, Phan HTT, Latkin CA (2016) Methadone Maintenance Treatment Promotes Referral and Uptake of HIV Testing and Counselling Services amongst Drug Users and Their Partners. PLoS One 11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Nguyen LH, Tran BX, Nguyen NP, Phan HT, Bui TT, Latkin CA (2015) Mobilization for HIV Voluntary Counseling and Testing Services in Vietnam: Clients' Risk Behaviors, Attitudes and Willingness to Pay. AIDS Behav. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Nguyen LH, Tran BX, Nguyen HLT, Nguyen CT, Hoang CD, Le HQ, et al. (2017) Psychological Distress Among Methadone Maintenance Patients in Vietnamese Mountainous Areas. AIDS and Behavior. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Nguyen LH, Nguyen LHT, Boggiano VL, Hoang CD, Van Nguyen H, Le HT, et al. (2017) Quality of life and healthcare service utilization among methadone maintenance patients in a mountainous area of Northern Vietnam. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 15: 77 doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0633-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Nguyen LT (2012) Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 10: 132 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Tran BX, Huong LT, Hinh ND, Nguyen LH, Le BN, Nong VM, et al. (2017) A study on the influence of internet addiction and online interpersonal influences on health-related quality of life in young Vietnamese. BMC Public Health 17: 138 doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3983-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Zhang MWB, Tran BX, Nguyen HLT, Le HT, Long NH, Le HT, et al. (2017) Using Online Respondent Driven Sampling for Vietnamese Youths' Alcohol Use and Associated Risk Factors. Healthc Inform Res 23: 109–118. doi: 10.4258/hir.2017.23.2.109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Zhang MWB, Tran BX, Huong LT, Hinh ND, Nguyen HLT, Tho TD, et al. (2017) Internet addiction and sleep quality among Vietnamese youths. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 28: 15–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2017.03.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Tran BX, Hwang J, Nguyen LH, Nguyen AT, Latkin NRK, Tran NK, et al. (2016) Impact of Socioeconomic Inequality on Access, Adherence, and Outcomes of Antiretroviral Treatment Services for People Living with HIV/AIDS in Vietnam. PLOS ONE 11: e0168687 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Tran BX, Vu PB, Nguyen LH, Latkin SK, Nguyen CT, Phan HTT, et al. (2016) Drug addiction stigma in relation to methadone maintenance treatment by different service delivery models in Vietnam. BMC Public Health 16: 238 doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2897-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Van Nguyen H, Nguyen HLT, Mai HT, Le HQ, Tran BX, Hoang CD, et al. (2017) Stigmatization among methadone maintenance treatment patients in mountainous areas in northern Vietnam. Harm Reduct J 14 doi: 10.1186/s12954-017-0142-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Tran BX, Nguyen NPT (2012) Patient Satisfaction with HIV/AIDS Care and Treatment in the Decentralization of Services Delivery in Vietnam. PLoS One 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Tran BX, Nguyen LH, Phan HT, Latkin CA (2015) Patient satisfaction with methadone maintenance treatment in Vietnam: a comparison of different integrative-service delivery models. PloS one 10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Yang F, Lin P, Li Y, He Q, Long Q, Fu X, et al. (2013) Predictors of retention in community-based methadone maintenance treatment program in Pearl River Delta, China. Harm Reduction Journal 10: 3 doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-10-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Barclay TR, Hinkin CH, Castellon SA, Mason KI, Reinhard MJ, Marion SD, et al. (2007) Age-associated predictors of medication adherence in HIV-positive adults: health beliefs, self-efficacy, and neurocognitive status. Health Psychol 26: 40–49. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.26.1.40 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Riegel B, Weaver TE (2009) Poor Sleep and Impaired Self-Care: Towards a Comprehensive Model Linking Sleep, Cognition, and Heart Failure Outcomes. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 8: 337–344. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2009.06.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Zhou K, Zhuang G (2014) Retention in methadone maintenance treatment in mainland China, 2004–2012: A literature review. Addictive Behaviors 39: 22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Havens JR, Latkin CA, Pu M, Cornelius LJ, Bishai D, Huettner S, et al. Predictors of opiate agonist treatment retention among injection drug users referred from a needle exchange program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 36: 306–312. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Serovich JM, McDowell TL, Grafsky EL (2008) Women’s Report of Regret of HIV Disclosure to Family, Friends and Sex Partners. AIDS Behav 12: 227–231. doi: 10.1007/s10461-007-9295-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Obermeyer CM, Baijal P, Pegurri E (2011) Facilitating HIV Disclosure Across Diverse Settings: A Review. Am J Public Health 101: 1011–1023. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Fekete EM, Antoni MH, Lopez CR, Durán RE, Penedo FJ, Bandiera FC, et al. (2009) Men's Serostatus Disclosure to Parents: Associations Among Social Support, Ethnicity, and Disease Status in Men Living with HIV. Brain Behav Immun 23: 693–699. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2009.01.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Ushie BA, Jegede AS (2012) The paradox of family support: concerns of tuberculosis-infected HIV patients about involving family and friends in their treatment. AIDS Patient Care STDS 26: 674–680. doi: 10.1089/apc.2011.0304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Dima AL, Stutterheim SE, Lyimo R, de Bruin M (2014) Advancing methodology in the study of HIV status disclosure: the importance of considering disclosure target and intent. Soc Sci Med 108: 166–174. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.McCance-Katz EF, Rainey PM, Jatlow P, Friedland G (1998) Methadone effects on zidovudine disposition (AIDS Clinical Trials Group 262). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 18: 435–443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Mills S (2012) Multilevel predictors of concurrent opioid use during methadone maintenance treatment among drug users with HIV/AIDS. PloS one 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Khalsa JH, Elkashef A (2010) Drug Interactions between Antiretroviral Medications and Medications Used in the Treatment of Drug Addiction: Research Needs. Am J Addict 19: 96 doi: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2009.00010.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Latkin CA, Mai NV, Ha TV, Sripaipan T, Zelaya C, Le Minh N, et al. (2016) Social Desirability Response Bias and Other Factors That May Influence Self-Reports of Substance Use and HIV Risk Behaviors: A Qualitative Study of Drug Users in Vietnam. AIDS Educ Prev 28: 417–425. doi: 10.1521/aeap.2016.28.5.417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data are owned by the Vietnam Authority of HIV/AIDS Control and protected by the Law of HIV/AIDS prevention and control; therefore, the dataset cannot be shared publicly. Requests for data can be sent to Dr. Phan Thi Thu Huong, Vice Director of the Vietnam Authority of HIV/AIDS Control (huongphanmoh@gmail.com). Other researchers can access these data in the same manner as the authors. The authors did not have any special access privileges that others would not have.