Treatment satisfaction and quality of support in outpatient substitution treatment: opiate users’ experiences and perspectives

Abstract

Aims: Patient-reported outcomes have become an important source of information to guide service provision. Although opiate substitution treatment (OST) is an evidence-based and widely available intervention for opiate dependent individuals, evaluation studies have primarily focused on objective outcome indicators rather than on clients’ perspectives and personal experiences. This study aims to assess opiate users’ satisfaction with various aspects of substitution treatment and their subjective experiences and expectations regarding the provision of psychosocial support. Methods: The study sample consisted of 77 opiate-dependent individuals who had been involved in OST for at least three months in some cities in Belgium. Qualitative interviews were used to explore clients’ subjective experiences, in addition to some quantitative measures. Findings: About half of the respondents recently received some form of psychosocial support and they were generally satisfied about these services. However, the number of persons who wanted psychosocial support clearly outnumbered those actually receiving these services. Respondents stressed the importance of building trusting relationships with OST staff. Also, the need for more flexible and individualised support was emphasised. Conclusions: Compared with other stakeholders’ perspectives or traditional outcome indicators, service users’ subjective experiences shed an alternative light on the impact of opiate dependence and OST on individuals’ daily lives. This information should be incorporated in individual treatment planning and when designing and evaluating OST services.

• Methadone
• opiate addiction
• quality of care
• recovery
• substitution treatment

Declaration of interest

This manuscript is based on the study “Analysis and optimization of substitution treatment in Belgium” (SUBANOP), which has been commissioned by the Belgian Federal Science Policy (BELSPO) (DR/58). No conflicts of interest are reported by any of the authors.