|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Social Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Different Strokes for Different Folks: results of a small study comparing characteristics of a therapeutic community population with a community drug project population|
Narcotic addicts Rehabilitation
Drug abuse Treatment
|Citation:||Yates R (2008) Different Strokes for Different Folks: results of a small study comparing characteristics of a therapeutic community population with a community drug project population. Therapeutic Communities, 29 (1), pp. 44-56. http://www.eftc-europe.com/tcjournal/|
|Abstract:||This paper reports the findings of a small study undertaken in Scotland and England. A small sample of 50 drug treatment service users was interviewed using the Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP) and Lucid Adult Dyslexia Screening (LADS). Half of the sample was resident in a therapeutic community (TC), whilst the other half were attending a community drug project and, almost exclusively, receiving long-term prescriptions for methadone. Whilst the main intention of the study was to explore the prevalence of dyslexia amongst treatment seeking populations, this paper examines the differences found between the users of the two treatment types. The TC population was significantly more likely to have been injecting prior to treatment, were using a more extensive range of drugs and were more likely to report psychological health problems, including suicidal ideation. The paper examines whether current UK policy on residential treatment is responsible for these differences and what these findings might mean for both treatment delivery and estimating the cost-benefits of treatment interventions.|
|Rights:||Published in Therapeutic Communities by the Association of Therapeutic Communities.; Intellectual Property rights remain with the author. URL: http://www.eftc-europe.com/tcjournal/issues/29.1.pdf; Publisher statement: "PHOTOCOPYING: Single copies for private study are permissible. Permission for multiple copies and reproduction should be sought from the author(s). COPYRIGHT is retained by the author(s) on the understanding that material published in this Journal has not previously been published elsewhere, and that acknowledgement is made to this Journal by the author(s) when using the same material in subsequent publications".|
|strokes1.pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version||437.35 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.