100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 4 - 7 out of 8 pages.
however would seem that the participants are voluntarily participating as not only were they studied quantitatively but also qualitatively through interviews in which they were asked about their experiences and outcomes. The author of the study does not make mention of any approval by any institutional review board. The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE COMPARISONS5[NIDA] although did not have any participation in the study in terms of its design, data collection and interpretation, or its submission for publication (Monico, L., Gryczynski, J., Mitchell, S., Schwartz, R., O'Grady, K., & Jaffe, J., 2015).The variables for this study were clearly defined. The independent variables are as follows: Gender, age, total NA meetings attended at 3 months and 6 months, counseling service usage, whether or not counselor requires NA attendance and the treatment site. The dependent variables included: Abstinence from drug use at 6 months and retention in therapy at 6 months. Data collected was during a randomized trial of counseling service during Buprenorphine treatment programs which included standard outpatient and intensive outpatient services (Monico et al., 2015).For this study, 300 participants were newly admitted to buprenorphine treatment at one ofthe two outpatient programs that participated in the study. These participants were African American and opioid dependent. Previously, these two programs were drug-free treatment programs but recently adopted the buprenorphine policy. These two programs encouraged their patients to participate in NA or another 12-step meeting service. One of the programs had on-siteweekly NA meetings. Counseling programs were 5 days a week and included on-site buprenorphine dosing 5 to 6 days a week where patients were able to receive prescriptions until aperiod of stabilization was determined in which the patient was then referred to receive buprenorphine in primary care settings. These participants were assessed at baseline as well as 3 months and 6 month follow-ups with a face to face interview using standardized assessment questions. Urine specimens collected during each assessment and findings analyzed at an external laboratory. Findings sought after were commonly abused drugs such as opiates and cocaine (Monico et al., 2015).
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE COMPARISONS6The author does not describe any data management methods or discus how rigorous the process was. The study did use t-tests for continuous variables, chi-2 tests for categorical variables, and multivariate logistic regression models in order to predict treatment retention and abstinence however there is no mention of software used. Data analysis was not fully explained and it is unknown what steps were used to minimize researcher bias (Monico et al., 2015).According to the researcher, at the 6 month follow up, mean NA meeting attendance was significantly higher in the group who stayed in buprenorphine DRT than those who dropped out.