Communicating the principle of ‘treatment instead of punishment’ in Hungary on the basis of an examination of the patients at a drug outpatient clinic

Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy " # $## % ev rR ee rP Fo ! & ' % # # ' w ie ly On URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 1 of 44 Communicating the Principle of “Treatment Instead of Punishment” in Hungary on the Basis of an Examination of the Patients at a Drug Outpatient Clinic Abstract Aims: Drug use is an indictable offence in Hungary, but there is an opportunity to suspend the criminal proceedings if a small quantity of drugs is involved. However, the principle of "treatment instead of punishment" (TIP) is heavily disputed in the professional literature. The present study Fo addresses the impact of the legal implementation of TIP on the practices of an institution that treats drug patients. rP Methods: Data was analysed on the basis of Addiction Severity Index (ASI) interviews conducted with ee individuals (n=628) who applied for treatment at a Budapest drug outpatient clinic between 2001 and 2005. The ASI of individuals who chose TIP was compared with that of other drug patients using rR cluster analysis and a two-sample statistical t-test. ev Findings: After 2003, when the criminal law changed, the share of participants in TIP increased from 24% to 72.6%. Approximately half the sample required treatment but did not have any problems. iew From 2003, the share of patients "without problems" who chose TIP was high (60%). Conclusions: A modification of the TIP framework is justified for Hungary’s criminal administration On policy, which should consider the severity of the condition of the person utilizing the service in connection with drug use. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Keywords: treatment instead of punishment, quasi compulsory treatment, Addiction Severity Index (ASI), outpatient treatment URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 2 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Communicating the Principle of “Treatment Instead of Punishment” in Hungary on the Basis of an Examination of the Patients at a Drug Outpatient Clinic Introduction The treatment of drug users in lieu of punishment is a heavily discussed and disputed issue in the international literature (Wild et al., 2001; Wild et al., 2002). In the European Union, the term “quasi compulsory” treatment (QCT) is generally used (Fisher et al., 2002) in relation to the treatment of Fo criminals who committed offences other than drug offences. Treatment instead of punishment (TIP) for drug users is incorporated into the various institutional systems of the individual countries, rP relating to both the judicial and therapeutic systems (Fisher et al., 2002; Lévay, 2006; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006; Soulet et al., 2006; Stevens et al., 2003; Stevens et al., 2006). The ee present study examines one facet of the situation in Hungary: how the principle of TIP is rR communicated in Hungarian drug policies, or more precisely, its criminal policies. We examined the practices of an institute engaged in the treatment of drug patients in the context of whether the ev patients being treated on the basis of TIP are genuinely drug patients in need of treatment and if, from another point of view, this legal option is reaching the target groups in need of treatment (i.e. iew drug users that have a severe need of treatment). Stated more clearly, we evaluated whether the latest amendment, in 2003, to the regulatory enforcement of TIP has had any perceivable effect on the number of patients at the treatment institute. Also, we investigated whether the assumption On that the drug users affected by the legal implementation of TIP, in the context of its jurisdiction in criminal matters, are those whose problems require only short-term treatment, or do not particularly require treatment, is correct. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Treatment Instead of Punishment in Hungary Drug users in Hungary are treated primarily in health care institutions. In 2006, 23% of patients receiving treatment for the first time (1,304 of a total 5,673 persons) received in-patient treatment, URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 3 of 44 22% (1,247/5,673) received treatment at outpatient centres specializing in addiction, and 50.3% (2,856/5,673) received treatment at outpatient centres specializing in drug use. Blue Point Drug Counselling and Outpatient Centre, where we performed our work, is considered to be part of the latter outpatient centre group. At the centres specializing in drug use, an effort is made to integrate the patients’ medical and psychological treatment, whereas the other centres primarily provide medical treatment. About 200 drug users are treated annually at residential, primarily therapeutic, Fo community-type institutions outside the health care system. In 2006, 853 outpatient clients participated in methadone maintenance treatment. Treatment institutions are financed by the rP National Health Fund regardless of their legal status (health care or non-governmental organizations). The funding basically follows the number of treated clients; if they have fewer clients ee they receive less money. Treatment institutions receive the same amount money for TIP and non-TIP clients. In “education-prevention” TIP services, which are described below, clients are financed by rR another government fund, so treatment institutions who deal with these kinds of clients receive extra financing. ev In 2004, 260 treatment institutions were involved in providing TIP; however, 15 institutions treated 85% of the TIP clients (Vitrai et al., 2009). iew In Hungary, the punishment for consumption-type criminal offences involving small quantities of On drugs (Penal Code: Article 282 of Act IV of 1978) is a 2-year prison sentence. These offences include the possession and holding of drugs for personal use and the conveyance of drugs without intention ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 to distribute. The discovery of drug residuals in an individual’s urine is enough for the person to be prosecuted. Neither the police nor the public prosecutors are authorised to halt prosecution, even, for example, due to a low degree of social risk, contrary to the practice in several countries of the European Union (European Legal Data Base on Drugs, EMCDDA). The same legal rules apply for marijuana as for other drugs, which is also contrary to the practice in several countries of the European Union (EMCDDA). In Hungary, 89.8% of the criminal procedures concerning drug problems URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy in 2006 (6,734 cases) (Felvinczi et al., 2007) were initiated against drug users (demand side: manufacturing, growing, possession, conveyance, and importing for personal use and involving small quantities). The possibility of applying TIP in the case of drug offences involving small quantities was established by an amendment to the Penal Code in 1993, which was later changed by an amendment in 1998, and again by an amendment in 2003 (Lévay, 2006). Before 1993, the punishment for drug offences was a suspended sentence, probation, or a fine, regardless of the type of drug (438 cases Fo between 1990 and 1993). In 1998, the Parliament wanted to make the legislation stricter so that only drug users who were addicted could choose TIP. In 2003 a significant change occurred; the pool of rP offenders eligible for TIP was increased considerably through legislation, including not only drug addicts, but also recreational users, regardless of the type of drug. The goal of this change in ee legislation was to reduce the punishment of recreational users and re-establish the earlier, “more tolerant” legislation. The Hungarian drug laws have continued to not differentiate between drugs. At rR present, three types of TIP programmes are available: a) the treatment of drug addicts, b) the socalled other treatment of drug users, and c) prevention and educational services for recreational ev users (regardless of the type of drug) to prevent the development of severe drug use (Joint Decree iew No. 26/2003 (V. 16.) ESZCSM-GYISM). The first two types of programmes refer to the treatment of drug users in severe need of treatment and may only be performed at health institutions, whereas the latter may also be provided by accredited prevention institutions. Recreational or regular drug On users who cannot be diagnosed as addicts and whose psychological state does not justify treatment have access to a prevention education service after completing usage examinations, including ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 4 of 44 addiction severity index (ASI). The procedure followed in all three programmes is the same: subjects have to make use of the service (in one of the three forms) continuously for 6 months, for at least 2 hours every 2 weeks. Neither the specialists providing the treatment nor the education-prevention services have the opportunity to change this time frame based on a patient’s condition or change in condition. According to the national report to the EMCDDA (National Drug Focal Point, 2008) in 2007, 2,381 persons began TIP and 1,488 completed a programme that year (568 persons (24%) had not URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 5 of 44 completed TIP or discontinued the programme). TIP can be voluntarily chosen and, in practice, essentially everyone chooses it. If a person does not choose TIP or does not fulfil its requirements, then they stand before the drug user’s court where a fine, suspended sentence, or probation can be imposed. A prison term cannot be imposed in these cases. Persons Choosing Treatment Instead of Punishment in the Hungarian Health Service Fo The number of drug users choosing TIP hardly changed between 2001 and 2002 (703 and 751 individuals, respectively) (Elekes et al., 2006). A very considerable increase (212%) occurred in 2003 rP following the amendment of the Penal Code, but since that time the number of persons being ee prosecuted who choose TIP has increased at a lower rate. In 2002, the ratio of TIP patients among new clients at treatment centres (beginning the treatment that year) was 16%, in 2003, 2004, 2005, rR and 2006 this ratio was 39%, 56%, 57%, and 70%, respectively. (Elekes et al., 2006; Felvinczi et al., 2007). iew ev Figure 1. Number of individuals in treatment as an alternative to criminal proceedings from 2002-2006 according to the primary drug used. On Behind the abrupt increase starting in 2003, a 417% increase in cannabis users was observed among ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy TIP patients (Fig. 1) (Felvinczi et al., 2007). At the same time, in 2005, the number of opiate users among patients participating in TIP decreased significantly (64%) compared to the previous year (Elekes et al., 2006). The percentage of TIP patients participating in the education-prevention service at a national level in 2004 was 36%, and 39% in 2005 (Elekes et al., 2006). Importantly, Hungarian law does not make a distinction between drugs. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Our research took place at a non-governmental organization in Budapest, the Blue Point Drug Counselling and Outpatient Centre, which is a treatment institute that operates as a foundation. Blue Point has been receiving drug-use patients since 1996. In Budapest, which has 2 million inhabitants and is the capital of Hungary (10 million inhabitants nationwide), there are three drug outpatient clinics with a substantial number of patients, Blue Point being one of them. In 2006, 393 drug users being treated for the first time came to Blue Point. The Fo centre is the third busiest in Hungary, and it operates in an abstinence-oriented approach. Clients come voluntarily from the whole country, but mostly from the capital, or they can be rP referred by TIP. The centre has an obligation to provide any kind of drug services for the inhabitants where the clinic is located. ee In the assessment phase, the patient ASI is calculated and, after a psychiatric examination, their rR treatment plan devised. This examination consists of cognitive-behavioural oriented counselling performed by social workers, because there are no counsellors in Hungary, and is supplemented by ev pharmacotherapy when necessary. In more severe cases, psychotherapy emphasising cognitive tools is performed by a psychiatrist or psychologist. In Hungary, only these two types of experts can iew perform psychotherapy. This approach provides an opportunity to integrate medical and psychological treatment within the institute. The self-help groups are not included due to their small numbers; Narcotics Anonymous has 200-300 members throughout the country. ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 6 of 44 Methods Subjects The analysis was carried out on the basis of the ASI data for patients who applied for treatment at the Blue Point Drug Counselling and Outpatient Centre in Budapest between URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 7 of 44 2001 and 2005. The data from 628 subjects were analysed. Patients suited for the educationprevention service were forwarded to prevention services by the outpatient clinic and were not treated to a significant extent at the clinic. ASI questionnaires were not filled out by patients: younger than 16 years old. According to the ASI manual, the questionnaire works properly with persons older than 18 years. Out of the total 1,019 new patients Fo registered at the outpatient clinic during the period between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2005, 42 were under 16 years of age (4%), and the age of 38 patients (4%) rP was not known. Thus, 8% of the total new clients choosing TIP did not fill out the ASI questionnaire. ee not ready to take the interview in the opinion of the interviewers or did not understand rR the majority of questions. This group of patients may have had more needs or been more problematic. ev Table 1. Number of patients who chose treatment instead of punishment (TIP) and number of iew patients with a completed addiction severity index (ASI) interview at the outpatient clinic from 2001-2005. On The highest number people failed to take the ASI interview in 2002 and 2005, with only 57% ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy and 58% doing so, respectively. These lower rates can mostly be explained by the reasons described above (age, illiteracy, or the patient was forwarded to another institution). The lower figure seen in 2004 can also be attributed to the fact that the outpatient clinic was moved to its current location that year, resulting in many clients not being able to find the clinic and, thus, failing to take the interview. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Measuring Tool The ASI was developed by McLellan et al. in 1980 (McLellan et al., 1980) and was last changed in 1992 as the fifth edition (McLellan et al., 1992). EuropASI (Kokkevi & Hartgers, 1995) is an adapted version of the fifth edition of ASI, which was endorsed in Hungary by two research groups independently (Gerevich et al., 2001, 2005; Rácz et al., 2002). The ASI questionnaire plays an important role not only in the identification of the patients’ medical profile and need for treatment, Fo and furthermore the severity of their illness, but also in understanding the background factors influencing their licit and illicit drug use from the point of view of both diagnosis and research. rP The international application of the various versions of ASI to drug users for both clinical and ee research purposes has a history extending more than two decades (Argeriou et al., 1994; Chawarski et al., 2006; Hodgins & El-Guebaly, 1992; Kaminer & Frances, 1991; Joyner et al., 1996; Rounsaville et rR al., 1991; Stevens et al., 2006). This measurement tool is not only used for assessing the condition of the patients, but also for evaluating their treatment programme (Alterman et al., 1994; Cacciola, 1997; Wiese, 1995). iew Data Collection ev The interviews of new patients who entered treatment between January 2001 and December 2005 On were carried out by trained social workers. The social workers took part in a 3-day training programme. On the first two days, the social workers familiarized themselves with the composition ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 8 of 44 and encoding system of the ASI through the aid of case briefs and role playing, following the training recommendations of the developers of the ASI (http://www.tresearch.org/training/asi_train.htm). On the third day of training, which was held at a later time, the social workers analysed the trial ASIs that had been given in the meantime. The ASI interview was given in the second session of the assessment process; the first session was an assessment interview. After recording the interviews, URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 9 of 44 the questionnaires were entered into a Statistical Programme for Social Sciences (SPSS) database. No follow-up ASI interviews were done after the completion of the treatment. Variables and Methods Applied in the Analysis During the course of the analysis, we measured severity as it related to different problem areas, with Fo the composite score index calculated according to international practice (McGahan et al., 1984). The composite score is an objective index relating to a given dimension of the client's state of health, rP which is the result of a mathematical summation of certain answers connected to the given problem areas. In the case of employment and legal status, we deviated from the original formula in the ee calculation of the composite scores because certain variables did not appear to function properly in rR the domestic context in the course of the EuropASI validation (Rácz et al., 2002). We produced the legal status index from the questionnaire by leaving out the variable and established employment ev status by choosing the variable group that best correlated with the severity evaluation given by the interviewer and, at the same time, possessed the greatest internal consistency through the iew introduction of three new variables. Each of the objective indices calculated for the different areas resulted in a continuous variable falling between 0 and 1, where 0 represents a lack of problems and 1 represents problems of maximum severity. On When creating the composite scores for employment and legal status, we made slight changes ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy to the original formula, which can be explained by the fact that the Hungarian-endorsed EuropASI does not contain all of the variables that were, according to the protocol, established to create the composite scores, but, as noted during the validation process, some variables were not relevant in the Hungarian context. In the case of legal status, the following variable was left out of the Hungarian version of the EuropASI: “How many days in the past 30 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 10 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy did you engage in illegal activities for profit?” The reliability index of the remaining four variables used to create the composite score for legal status reached the necessary statistical level. Regarding employment status, only two of the variables necessary to create the composite score were included in the Hungarian version of the EuropASI: “How many days did you work during the past 30 days?” and “Do you have a valid driver’s license?” The reliability index created from these two variables turned out to be low; therefore, they could not be used for the composite scores. In Fo this situation, we decided to test employment status variables that best correlated with the severity rating and had the highest internal consistency. rP Following the test, the following variables were chosen to be included in the composite scores for employment status: ee 1. How many days did you work during the past 30 days? rR 2. How many days did you experience employment/unemployment problems in the past 30 days? ev 3. How troubled or bothered have you been by these employment problems in the past 30 days? iew 4. How important to you is counselling for these employment problems now? On Results ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Table 2. Sociodemographic and drug usage characteristics of patients choosing treatment instead of punishment (TIP) and those admitted for other reasons at the outpatient clinic between 2001 and 2005. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 11 of 44 Table 2 contains the sociodemographic and substance abuse characteristics of persons who chose TIP and those admitted for other reasons at the outpatient clinic. A chi-square test was used to compare differences in Table 2. Three-quarters of the clients who entered treatment between 2001 and 2005 were men. Among the patients, persons between 20 and 24 years of age were overrepresented. A large percentage of the patients had secondary school degrees, and in regards to their employment status, they either worked full-time jobs or attended university. The vast majority Fo of the patients had never been married. By the patients’ own accounts, no drug problem could be established for nearly a quarter of the sample. In the remaining cases, cannabis, heroin, and rP amphetamine usage caused the primary drug problem. Nearly one-third of the sample did not have a continuous history of drug use; that is, they had used drugs only once or occasionally. At the same ee time, though, nearly 30% of the other patients had a history of drug abuse encompassing more than 3 years. Slightly more than half of the sample entered TIP during the period examined. Notably, in rR certain categories (sex, age group, education level, and primary drug problem), significant differences were found between persons choosing TIP and those admitted for other reasons. Individuals ev choosing TIP tended to be men aged between the ages of 20 and 24 years who had not finished their iew trade school or college training and had no history of drug use. Also, patients attending TIP seemed to have no primary drug problem. No considerable difference was found between the two subgroups in regards to employment status. Ratio of TIP Patients Before and After 2003 ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy The percentage of persons receiving TIP in the outpatient clinic significantly increased from 24% before 2003 to 72.6% after 2003 (chi-quadrate=119.58; p=0.00; Fig. 2). Figure 2. Change in the number of treatment instead of punishment (TIP) participants in the period examined. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy The regulations set by the Hungarian Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (26/2003 (V. 16)) define three different categories for TIP: 1. Treated instead of punished for some other reason 2. Admitted within the framework of the TIP programme Fo 3. Education-prevention services We used these official categories in the analysis. The third category is not included because rP the Blue Point Drug Centre does not provide this kind of service, it only refers patients for it. Drug centres decide what kind of TIP is necessary for a certain patient through the ee preliminary assessment based on the ASI interview. rR Comparison of the Health Status of TIP Patients and Patients Treated for Other Reasons iew ev Figure 3. Composite scores of patients registered within the framework of the TIP programme from 2001-2005. On Figure 4. Composite scores of patients treated for other reasons instead of punishment from 20012005. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 12 of 44 The composite score for medical status and drug use was lower for patients receiving TIP than persons treated for other reasons during the period examined. The composite score for employment status was also lower for patients receiving TIP than the others. The composite score for legal status URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 13 of 44 was greater for persons receiving TIP than others until 2003, which is also due to the judicial process. Regarding family status and psychiatric state, the patients receiving TIP had more favourable indexes than those treated for other reasons. Taken together, the results show that patients who received TIP had more favourable values than those treated for other reasons, and among those receiving TIP, the patients who entered treatment after 2003 can be characterised as having less severe problems in numerous severity categories (Figs. 3 and 4). Although a slight increase was seen in medical status Fo and alcohol use values after 2003, they were still below or just over 0.2, which, according to the EuropASI manual, can be regarded as a low figure (the scale for the composite score ranges from 0 to rP 1, where 1 represents that the problem is great and treatment is definitely necessary). Using the composite scores, we made a cluster analysis, which allowed us to clearly differentiate the ee patient groups with different characteristics. rR Group 1: “serious problems”, 19% of total sample. These patients had more significant employment problems than the others and can be characterised by both psychiatric and drug problems. ev Group 2: “less serious problems”, 18% of total sample. These patients had significant problems in the iew areas of law and employment, but lower composite scores for other aspects. Group 3: “without problems”, 50% of total sample. These patients had, on average, low composite scores in all aspects. On Group 4: 12% of total sample. The main characteristic of these patients is that they have a major ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy health problem in addition to mid-level employment and psychiatric problems. On the basis of the cluster analysis, half of the total sample quite clearly did not have problems requiring treatment. However, there was no need or point in making comparisons to other groups to reach this conclusion because the assessment tool (EuropASI) was developed URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 14 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy to assess treatment needs and problems in a standardised way, independent of the target group (ordinary persons, addicts, etc.) to which it is applied. On the other hand, this conclusion is also based on the value range of the composite score. Figure 5. Proportion of cluster groups per year. The third group represents the group without problems as explained in the Results section. Fo rP Finally, we examined the manner in which the proportion of the group without problems changed between 2001 and 2005 compared to persons receiving TIP and those treated for other reasons. In ee each year from 2001 to 2005, we found a significantly higher proportion of patients “without rR problems” receiving TIP. However, in 2004, the increase was not significant. Starting in 2003, the proportion increased dramatically (28%) among those receiving TIP, and in all three years after ev (2003, 2004, 2005), the proportion was above 60%. Beginning in 2003, the proportion of patients without problems increased not only among those receiving TIP, but also among other patients. iew ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 15 of 44 Discussion In Hungary, the option of TIP for drug users was established by an amendment of the Criminal Code in 1993 (Lévay, 2006). A significant change also took place in 2003 (compared to the earlier laws in force between 1999-2003, when only drug addicts could choose TIP), when the legislature considerably extended the range of persons who could receive TIP. At present, three types of punishment alternatives exist: treatment of drug addicts, so-called alternative care for treating drug Fo users, and the education-prevention service. We examined the consequences of these legal regulations on the basis of the ASI compiled for the patients of a Budapest (metropolitan) outpatient rP drug clinic. The selection of the sample was limited to one institution, and therefore is in no way representative of the national treatment institutes. However, the characteristics of the sample (ratio ee of drugs used, age, and sex) were similar to the national data that has been gathered (Felvinczi & rR Nyírády és Portörő, 2007; Vitrai et al., 2009). The analysis based on the ASI was also necessary because the National Statistical Data Collection Programme (OSAP, see note 1) does not provide ev reliable data concerning the number of those treated due to drug problems. iew On the basis of the ASI composite scores for the patients registered between 2001 and 2005 at the drug outpatient clinic, we found a clear effect of the 2003 amendment to the regulatory enforcement of TIP, resulting in a considerable proportion of the persons receiving TIP being On comprised of patients with slight problems or without problems. We also noted that patients without problems who were able to take advantage of the education-prevention service were referred by the ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 outpatient clinic; therefore, their treatment did not take place at the clinic, though an ASI was calculated for them. Due to this arrangement, only a negligible number of patients with severe health problems were taken to the outpatient clinic on the basis of TIP. From the experience we gained in the treatment institute, TIP as applied through the legal system primarily reaches drug users who do not require treatment (e.g., people who tried marijuana and are without problems, as URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy well as occasional users) and who do not need health care for either drug use or other problems (e.g., health or psychiatric problems). At the level of drug policy, the findings mean that the implementation of TIP has not reached drug users who have severe dependencies, this goal was not changed by the 2003 legislation, but only that, on average, the TIP group after 2003 has not had severe problems. Patients without problems receiving TIP unnecessarily occupy a great portion of the capacity of the health care system; because Fo of extra financing for the education-prevention service for TIP drug users without problems, treatment institutions keep them for the obligatory 6 months. No data is available regarding whether rP these patients block entry into treatment. We can only assume that the drug agencies become complacent waiting for TIP patients rather than providing easier access and availability to ee problematic drug users through their programmes. The 6-month treatment period valid for all three rR forms of TIP is not justified for a considerable number of cases. When determining the duration and frequency of treatment, psychiatric and forensic analyses of the patient’s condition should also be taken into consideration. iew ev In Hungary, experience has shown us the possible consequences of applying legal regulations without making distinctions; the law mainly affects drug users who do not have problems, as they are the ones who take advantage of the TIP option. This conclusion means that, in the treatment institutions On (in-patient and outpatient clinics), drug users who do not have problems or who may be characterised as having only slight problems tend to be the majority of those in treatment. At the ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 16 of 44 same time, drug abusers with more severe problems do not receive this kind of treatment. The reason for the extensive application of TIP is that drug abuse (and possessing drugs for one's own use) is a strictly prosecuted crime in Hungary with a prison term of up to two years. In the case of users, the legal implementation of TIP is designed to compensate for the fact that this punishment is avoided, particularly for recreational drug users who do not have severe problems. This is the advantage of the law, but it mostly compels drug users who do not have problems to take part in URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 17 of 44 treatment or education-prevention programmes to avoid punishment. In reality, drug users do not avoid criminal proceedings, they can only choose treatment (or an education-prevention programme) instead of prosecution with the consent of the public prosecutor, or earlier during the investigation period; however, criminal proceedings are still initiated against them in these cases. Another possible alternative could be medical treatment as a social control mechanism for “recreational” drug users who do not have problems. The effect of the wide ranging application of Fo this approach at the level of drug policy would not necessarily lead to the expected results, the suppression of this type of substance abuse. The utilization of this kind of social control could easily rP be counterproductive, as it could push drug users without problems towards the patterns of more serious drug abuse. At the same time, warnings have been given, primarily by Frank Furedi (e.g., ee Furedi, 2006), about the dangers of treatment agencies or even patient-initiated medical treatment (for the effects related to medical treatment see Conrad, 2005; McBride et al., 2009; Metz and Herzig, 2007; Rose, 2007). ev rR On the basis of our observations, we propose the alteration of either the legal implementation of TIP or the decriminalisation of drug use (personal use and possession). In our opinion, both iew modifications, particularly the latter, would result in the treatment of a larger share of the problematic drug users instead of the unproblematic ones, and the criminalisation and medical treatment of drug users without problems can be avoided. We surmise that the availability and On access to treatment centres will increase for non-TIP drug users and, furthermore, that the criminal justice system would be able to pay greater attention to the more problematic drug users. We think ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 this approach would free up capacity at treatment institutes, which could be used for programmes designed for treating problematic drug users, even though we did not find any data suggesting that the current TIP patients are blocking the entry of others into treatment. The principle of TIP in the context of Hungarian criminal law has become flawed, with 90% of criminal proceedings now initiated against drug use offenders (Felvinczi et al., 2007). Currently in Hungary, the first proposal URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 18 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy (the alteration of TIP) is more realistic than the second option (decriminalisation), which still leaves a question about the effectiveness of QCT options for problematic drug users in Hungary. The observations we made during the course of our research on the legal procedures related to drug users and drug addicts, who also commit other offences, can be placed in a wider scope. At the same time, we noted that, in Hungary, drug users who have not committed other crimes also end up in TIP. Numerous methodological problems have been brought up by Perry et al. (2008) in studies on the Fo effectiveness of drug treatment programmes for drug-using offenders in the courts. However, according to the authors’ summary, interventions for drug-using offenders under the care of the rP criminal justice system can be effective (Perry et al., 2008). Numerous other examinations corroborate the authors’ conclusions (Cooper, 2003; Freeman, 2003; Krebs et al., 2007; Roll et al., ee 2005; Turner et al., 2002; Kelly et al., 2005; Marlowe et al., 2005). The fact that the criminal justice rR system can serve as a point of contact is an important aspect that has been recognized for a long time (Leukefeld et al., 1998). ev Patients sent to treatment by the justice system have better substance abuse and other iew characteristics at the time of admittance compared to non-mandated patients entering through the justice system and patients not involved in the justice system. In addition, these patients show more significant improvement at the completion of treatment than the other two groups (Kelly et al., On 2005). At the same time, the “drug court” model has been criticised. For example, California’s voterinitiated Proposition 36 (Prop 36) has been referring drug offenders to community-based drug ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 treatment. In the case of these patients, drop-outs (that is, those for whom the treatment “did not work”) were more criminally involved and had more severe substance abuse problems (Evans & Hser, 2009). Further examples that drug users in worse condition do not perform as well are available (e.g., Roll et al., 2005 for intravenous users; Marinelly-Casaey et al., 2008 for frequent methamphetamine users), and the model unnecessarily broadens the range of those included to those for whom it is not justified, called the “net widening” effect (Bowers, 2008; Draine et al., 2005; URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 19 of 44 Harrison & Scarpitti, 2002; Kelly et al., 2005). Others bring attention to the effects of “iatrogenesis”, which the legal approach produces among low intensity users who enter high intensity programmes, and at high cost (Marlowe, 2006). Certain authors also consider the “drug court” in its current form to be “contraindicated” (Bowers, 2008) because addicts in worse condition (or even anyone who can already be called an addict), as well as various minorities, perform much more poorly, thereby remaining in the criminal justice system for an unforeseeable period of time. Many envision the Fo future of the “drug court” movement as not only affecting criminal justice or the development of treatment approaches, but also connected with drug policies (e.g., Bowers, 2008). As we mentioned, rP the QCT model has been introduced in Europe. A study carried out in five European countries revealed that “QCT can be a valuable route into treatment for some people who are having problems ee with drug use but are not willing or able to enter treatment without a ‘push’ from the criminal justice system” (Stevens et al., 2006, p. 208). QCT clients are drug offenders, not “simple” drug abusers. rR Stevens et al. (2005) summarized their literature review published in French, German, Dutch, and Italian and compared it to reviews of the English literature, “Some common points have been found, ev such as the consistent correlation of dependent drug use and criminal behaviour, and the existence iew of studies that show that coerced treatment can have a similar outcome to voluntary treatment. However, the study has shown a greater range of outcomes, with more reports of negative results of QCT, than is found by reviewing only the English literature” (Stevens et al., 2005, p. 277). The authors On also concluded that “policy and practical decisions are being made in the absence of conclusive evidence on which to base them” (Stevens et al., 2007, p. 276). Certainly this is the point our study wanted to emphasize. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Our own observations of the “drug court” model are not directly comparable to these observations; however, elements also appeared in our examinations that cause the “drug court” model to be criticised, whereas the positive aspects of it are not observed due to the Hungarian legal system. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Limits of the Research Our research was based on local data and, at present, no analysis is similar to it based on national data, which would have been a more complex study of clients receiving TIP. The primary reason is that, in spite of the professional protocol (Pszichiátriai Szakmai Kollegium [Psychiatric Professional Fo College], 1998), the ASI measuring tool is only seldom used by drug outpatient clinics in Hungary (Gerevich et al., 2005). In addition, the restricted data collected by the OSAP (sociodemographic and rP substance abuse characteristics) do not enable a complex analysis similar to the one presented in this study. The sample of Blue Point patients is not representative, but the characteristics of the sample ee mirror those in the national data (Felvinczi et al., 2007). The lower rates of response, particularly for 2002 and 2005, can be explained by several factors, such as many clients being under the age of 16, rR illiterate, or not ready to be interviewed, and in addition, a number of patients who qualified for the education-prevention service were referred to other prevention services. ev In addition, as described in the Methods section of this study, the smaller figure seen in 2004 iew can also be attributed to the fact that the outpatient clinic moved to its current location, resulting in many clients not being able to find the clinic and failing to arrive at the interview. Acknowledgement ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 20 of 44 The study was supported, in part, by the Ministry of Social Affairs. The authors’ declaration of interest: the first and third author work at the institution where the study was done. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 21 of 44 Note 1. The National Statistical Data Collection Programme (OSAP) has been applied by drug treatment centres in Hungary since 1996. Data collection questionnaires have to be filled out by the centres at the end of each year. This means that only aggregated data could be Fo collected concerning the individual centres, which made the filtering of duplicates impossible. Data collection regulation was not effective (Felvinczi et al., 2007). From 2006, rP this type of data collection was replaced by a Treatment Demand Indicator (TDI) that met the EMCDDA norms. iew ev rR ee ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy References Fo Alterman, A. I., Brown, L. S., Zaballero, A., McKay J. R. (1994). Interviewer severity ratings and composite scores of the ASI: a further look. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 34, 201–209. ee rP Argeriou, M., McCarty, D., Mulvey, K., Daley M. (1994). Use of the Addiction Severity Index with homeless substance abusers. J Subst Abuse Treat, 11, 359–365. ev rR Bácskai, E., Pintye I., Gerevich J. (2006). Az öngyilkossági kísérletek disztális előzményei és szociodemográfiai jellemzői kezelést kereső alkoholbetegek körében [The distal antecedents and iew sociodemographic characteristics among alcohol dependent client seeking treatment with suicide attempt] Psychiatria Hungarica, 21, 1, 57-67. On Bowers, J. (2008): Contraindicated drug courts. UCLA Law Review, 55, 783-825. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 22 of 44 Cacciola, J.S. (1997). The Addiction Severity Index in clinical efficacy trials of medications for cocaine dependence. NIDA Research Monograph, 175, 182-91. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 23 of 44 Chawarski, M.C., Mazlan M., Schottenfeld, R.S. (2006). Heroin dependence and HIV infection in Malaysia. Drug And Alcohol Dependence, 82 Suppl 1, S39-42 Conrad, P. (2005). The Shifting Engines of Medicalization. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 3-14. Fo rP Cooper, C.S. (2003). Drug courts: current issues and future perspectives. Subst Use Misuse, 38(1113), 1671-711. rR ee Draine, J., Blank, A., Kottsieper, P., Solomon, P. (2005). Contrasting JailDiversion and In-Jail Services for Mental Illness and Substance Abuse: Do They Serve the Same Clients?. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(2), 171-181, iew ev Elekes, Zs., Nagy, Z., Nyírády, A., Porkoláb L. (2006). Problémás drogfogyasztás [Problem drug use]. ) On In Jelentés a magyarországi kábítószer-helyzetről, 2006 [Annual report on the drug situation in Hungary 2006 for the EMCDDA] National Drug Focus Point: Budapest, 28-39. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA): European Legal Database on Drugs. http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/ accessed on September 8 2008. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 24 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Evans, E., Hser, L.L.Y. (2009). Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32, 204–212 Felvinczi, K., Nyírády, A., Portörő, P. (2007). Jelentés a magyarországi kábítószerhelyzetről [Annual report on the drug situation in Hungary] Ministry for Social and Employment Affairs: Budapest. Fo Fisher, B., Rehm, J., Uchtenhagen, A., Kirst M. (2002). Compulsory treatment – rP What do we know and where should we go? Eur. Addict. Res., 8, 52–53. rR ee Freeman, K. (2003). Health and well-being outcomes for drug-dependent offenders on the NSW Drug Court programme. Drug Alcohol Rev, 22(4), 409-16. iew ev Furedi, F. (2006). The end of professional dominance. Society, 43(6), 14-18. On Gerevich, J., Bácskai, E., Kó, J., Rózsa S. (2001). Az Addikció Súlyossági Index (ASI) magyarországi reliabilitás és validitás vizsgálata [Reliability and validity study of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) in Hungary] Psychiatria Hungarica, 16(3), 292-307. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Gerevich, J., Bácskai, E., Kó, J., Rózsa S. (2005). Reliability and validity study of the Hungarian version of the European addiction severity index (ASI). Results of a multi-focal research project. Psychopathology, 38, 301-309. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 25 of 44 Harrison, L.D., Scarpitti, F.R. (2002). Introduction: Progress and issues in drug treatment court. Substance use & misuse, 37, 12-13, 1441–1467 Hodgins, D.C., El-Guebaly, N. (1992). More data on the Addiction Severity Index: Reliability and Fo validity with the mentally ill substance abuser. J Nerv Ment Dis, 180: 197–201. rP Joint Decree No. 26/2003 (V. 16.) ESZCSM-GYISM, modified by decree No. 55/2003 SZCSM (IX.4.), ee Magyar Közlöny, 2003. 103. 7895. modified by Joint Decree No. 42/2008. (XI. 14.) EüM-SZMM, Szociális Közlöny, 6,11, 1083-1087. ev rR Joyner, L.M., Wright, J.D., Devine, J.A. (1996). Reliability and validity of the Addiction Severity Index among homeless substance misusers. Substance Use and Misuse, 31, 729–751. iew Kaminer, Y., Frances, R.J. (1991). Inpatient treatment of adolescents with psychiatric and substance On abuse disorders. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 42, 894–896. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Kelly, J.F., Finney, J.W., Moos, R. (2005). Substance use disorder patients who are mandated to treatment: Characteristics, treatment process, and 1- and 5-year outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28, 213– 223. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 26 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Kokkevi, A., Hartgers, C. (1995). EuropASI: European adaptation of a multidimensional assessment instrument for drug and alcohol dependence. European Addiction Research, 1, 208–210. Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Koetse, W., Lattimore, P.K. (2007). Assessing the long-term impact of drug court participation on recidivism with generalized estimating equations. Drug Fo Alcohol Depend, 2,91(1), 57-68. rP Leukefeld, C.G., Logan, T.K., Martin, S.S., Purvis, R.T., Farabee, D. (1998). A Health Services Use ee Framework for Drug-Abusing Offenders. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 8, 1123-1135 rR Lévay, M. (2006). Büntetés helyett kezelés: Racionális és szükségszerű kompromisszum a kábítószer- ev problémával kapcsolatos kriminálpolitikában; Az elv érvényesülése a rendszerváltozás utáni magyar büntetőjogban [Treatment instead of punishment: A rational and reasonable compromise in criminal iew policy concerning drug problem; getting across of the principle in Hungarian criminal law after the system change] Addiktológia (Addictologia Hungarica), 5(4), 342-358. On Marinelli-Casey, P., Gonzales, R., Hillhouse, M., Ang, A., Zweben, J., Cohen, J., Hora, P.F., ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Rawson, R.A. (2008). Methamphetamine Treatment Project Corporate Authors. Drug court treatment for methamphetamine dependence: treatment response and posttreatment outcomes. J Subst Abuse Treat, 34(2), 242-8 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 27 of 44 Marlowe, D.B. (2006). Judicial Supervision of Drug-Abusing Offenders. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 323 SARC Supplement 3, 323-331 Marlowe, D.M., Festinger, D.S., Dugosh, K.L., Lee, P.A. (2005). Are judicial status hearings a “key component” of drug court? Six and twelve months outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79, 145–155 Fo rP McBride, D.C., Terry-McElrath, Y., Harwood, H., Inciardi, J.A., Leukefeld, C. (2009). Reflections on drug policy. Journal of Drug Issues, 39, 1, 71-88 rR ee McGahan, P., Griffith, J., McLellan, A.T. (1984). Composite scores from the Addiction Severity Index: Manual and computer software. Veterans Administration Press, PVAMC, Phila. PA 19104. iew ev McLellan, A.T, Luborsky, L., Woody G.E. O’Brien, C.P. (1980). An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients - The Addiction Severity Index. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 168, 26-33. ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy McLellan, A.T., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters R., Smith I., Grissom G., Pettinati H., Argeriou, M. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9, 199-213. Metzl, J.M., Herzig, R.M. (2007). Medicalisation in the 21st century. Introduction URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy The Lancet, 369, 9562, 697-698 National Drug Focal Point (2008). National report to the EMCDDA. National Drug Focal Point (REITOX), Budapest. Fo National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (2006). Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations. A research-based guide NIH Publication No. 06-5316. ee rP Perry, A., Coulton, S., Glanville, J., Godfrey, C., Lunn, J., McDougall, C., Neale, Z. (2006). Interventions rR for drug-using offenders in the courts, secure establishments and the community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD005193. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005193.pub2. iew ev Pszichiátriai Szakmai Kollégium (1998). A drogambulanciák minimális szakmai feltételrendszere. [Minimum professional conditions for drug outpatient units. Position paper of the College of Psychiatry] Psychiatry Hungarica, 1, 103–105. ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 28 of 44 Rácz J., Pogány Cs., Máthé-Árvay N. (2002). Az EuropASI (Addikció Súlyossági Index) magyar nyelvű változatának reliabilitás- és validitásvizsgálata [Reliability and validity study of the Hungarian version of EuroASI (Addiction Severity Index] Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle, 57(4), 587-603. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 29 of 44 Roll, J.M., Prendergast, M., Richardson, K., Burdon, W., Ramirez, A. (2005). Identifying predictors of treatment outcome in a drug court program. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse, 31(4), 641-56. Rose, N. (2007). Beyond medicalisation. The Lancet, 369, 9562, 700-702 Fo rP Rounsaville, B.J., Anton, S.F., Carroll, K.M., Budde, D., Prusoff, B.A., Gavin F.I .(1991). Psychiatric diagnosis of treatment seeking cocaine abusers. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 43–51. rR ee Soulet, M-H., Oeuvray, K., Uchtenhagen, A., Schaaf, S., Bock, I., Frick, U., Grichting, E., Bolliger, H. (2006). QCT Europe: Final report: Constructing, producing and analysing the qualitative evidence + ev Final report on quantitative evaluation. QCT-Europe, Research Institute for Public Health and Addiction, Zurich University Freiburg/Zurich. iew On Stevens, A., Berto, D., Kerschl, V., Oeuvray, K., van Ooyen, M., Steffan, E., Heckmann, W., Uchtenhagen, A. (2003). QCT Europe: Summary literature review: The international literature on drugs, crime and treatment. Canterbury, UK.: European Institute of Social Services, University of Kent: Kent, UK. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Stevens, A., Berto, D., Frick U., Hunt, N., Kerschl, V., McSweeney, T., Oeuvray, K., Puppo, I., Maria, A.S., Schaaf, S., Trinkl, B., Uchtenhagen, A., Werdenich, W. (2006). The Relationship between Legal URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 30 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Status, Perceived Pressure and Motivation in Treatment for Drug Dependence: Results from a European Study of Quasi-Compulsory Treatment. European Addiction Research,12, 197–209. Turner, S., Longshore, D., Wenzel, S., Deschenes, E., Greenwood, P., Fain, T., Harrell, A., Morral, A., Taxman, F., Iguchi, M., Greene, J., McBride, D. (2002). A decade of drug Fo treatment court research. Subst Use Misuse, 37(12-13), 1489-527 rP Vitrai J,, Busa Cs,, Füzesi Zs,, Kesztyüs M,, Szilágyi J,, Tistyán L, (2009). Tanulmány az „elterelés” hatásosságának vizsgálata című kutatás eredményeiről [Study on results of ee research on „diversion” effectivity] Egészségmonitor, Budapest, unpublished manuscript. ev rR Wiese, P.R. (1995). Efficacy of addiction treatment in a correctional setting for female offenders as iew measured by the Addiction Severity Index. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(9-B), 4136. On Wild, T. C., Newton-Taylor, B., Ogborne, A. C., Mann R. Erickson P., MacDonald S. (2001). Attitudes toward compulsory substance abuse treatment: a comparison of the public, conselors, probationers and judges’ views. Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 8,1, 33-45. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Wild, T. C. , Roberts, A. B., Cooper, E. L. (2002). Compulsory substance abuse treatment: An overview of recent findings and issues. European Addiction Research, 8, 84–93. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 31 of 44 Fo iew ev rR ee rP ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Figure 1 Fo iew ev rR ee rP ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 32 of 44 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 33 of 44 Figure 2 Fo rP TIP for some other reasons Entered in the framework of TIP” Total iew ev rR ee ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Figure 3 Fo iew ev rR ee rP ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 34 of 44 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 35 of 44 Figure 4 Fo iew ev rR ee rP ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Figure 5 Fo iew ev rR ee rP ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 36 of 44 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 37 of 44 List of artworks Table 1. Number of patients who chose treatment instead of punishment (TIP) and number of patients with a completed addiction severity index (ASI) interview at the outpatient clinic from 2001-2005. Year Number with ASI interview 72 113 183 114 146 628 % 64 57 67 60 58 61 iew ev rR ee rP 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total Number choosing TIP 112 199 275 192 250 1028 Fo ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Page 38 of 44 Fo 1 2 3 Table 2. Sociodemographic and drug usage characteristics of patients choosing treatment instead of 4 punishment (TIP) and those admitted for other reasons at the outpatient clinic between 2001 and 5 2005. 6 7 8 9 Number of 10 Total patients 11 Number of patients admitted for 12 attending TIP other reasons 13 14Total 628 344 247 15Sex** Column% Column% 16 Male 482 84.6% 70.4% 17 111 11.0% 24.3% 18Female No data 35 4.4% 5.3% 19 20Age** 21 ≤19 years 188 24.4% 36.0% 22 20-24 years 266 48.5% 36.0% 23 161 26.5% 27.1% 24≥25 years 25No data 13 0.6% 0.8% 26Educational level** 27 Less than 8 years of elementary school 124 21.5% 18.2% 28 8 years of elementary school 160 20.6% 30.4% 29 30Unfinished trade school, training college 77 16.9% 7.3% 31Trade school, training college 77 13.4% 11.7% 32 Unfinished gymnasium, specialised secondary school 35 5.2% 6.9% 33 Gymnasium, specialised secondary school 117 18.0% 19.4% 34 4 1.2% 0.0% 35Unfinished academy, university 36Academy, university 18 2.3% 4.0% 37No data 16 0.9% 2.0% 38 39Employment status 40 41Full-time 230 39.5% 35.2% 42Part-time 67 9.3% 12.1% 43 University student 235 34.9% 40.9% 44 In military service 7 1.2% 1.2% 45 57 10.8% 7.3% 46Unemployed or housewife 47Lives in a controlled environment 4 1.2% 0.0% 48No data 26 3.2% 3.2% 49 50Family status** 51 560 94.8% 87.4% 52Never married 53Married 17 1.5% 4.0% 54 Remarried 1 0.3% 0.0% 55 Lives separately 2 0.0% 0.8% 56 12 0.9% 3.6% 57Divorced 58No data 26 2.6% 4.0% 59Primary drug problem** 60 iew ev rR ee rP ly On No problems 160 39.2% URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk 7.7% Page 39 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy etc.) Fo 56 95 157 63 97 6.7% 12.5% 21.2% 7.3% 13.1% 12.1% 18.6% 32.8% 11.3% 17.4% 153 171 122 136 46 29.7% 21.8% 16.9% 21.2% 10.5% 17.4% 33.2% 23.9% 22.3% 3.2% ev rR ee rP 344 247 37 iew ly On 1 2 3 Heroin 4 5 Amphetamine 6 Cannabis 7 Several drugs 8 Other (alcohol, medicines, cocaine, 9 Length of drug career 10 11 12No drug career 130-2 years 143-4 years 15 16≥ 5 years 17No data 18Participation in TIP 19 20 Reached in the framework of TIP 21 22Reached for other reasons 23No data 24 *p<0.05, **p<0.01 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 40 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Table 1. Number of patients who chose treatment instead of punishment (TIP) and number of patients with a completed addiction severity index (ASI) interview at the outpatient clinic from 2001-2005. Table 2. Sociodemographic and drug usage characteristics of patients choosing treatment instead of punishment (TIP) and those admitted for other reasons at the outpatient clinic Fo between 2001 and 2005. rP Figure 1. Number of individuals in treatment as an alternative to criminal proceedings from ee 2002-2006 according to the primary drug used. rR Figure 2. Change in the number of treatment instead of punishment (TIP) participants in the period examined. iew ev Figure 3. Composite scores of patients registered within the framework of the TIP programme from 2001-2005. On Figure 4. Composite scores of patients treated for other reasons instead of punishment from ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 2001-2005. Figure 5. Proportion of cluster groups per year. The third group represents the group without problems as explained in the Results section. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 41 of 44 Communicating the Principle of “Treatment Instead of Punishment” in Hungary on the Basis of an Examination of the Patients at a Drug Outpatient Clinic Abstract Aims: Drug use is an indictable offence in Hungary, but there is an opportunity to suspend the criminal proceedings if a small quantity of drugs is involved. However, the principle of "treatment instead of punishment" (TIP) is heavily disputed in the professional literature. The Fo present study addresses the impact of the legal implementation of TIP on the practices of an institution that treats drug patients. rP Methods: Data was analysed on the basis of Addiction Severity Index (ASI) interviews conducted with individuals (n=628) who applied for treatment at a Budapest drug outpatient ee clinic between 2001 and 2005. The ASI of individuals who chose TIP was compared with that rR of other drug patients using cluster analysis and a two-sample statistical t-test. Findings: After 2003, when the criminal law changed, the share of participants in TIP ev increased from 24% to 72.6%. Approximately half the sample required treatment but did not have any problems. From 2003, the share of patients "without problems" who chose TIP was high (60%). iew Conclusions: A modification of the TIP framework is justified for Hungary’s criminal On administration policy, which should consider the severity of the condition of the person utilizing the service in connection with drug use. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk Page 42 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author This paper has something to offer the debate around TIP and the on-going problems and effects surrounding quasi-compulsary treatment. The authors clearly hold some strong opinions about this and are basing much of their work on a mixture of empirical research and personal and professional experiences. Equally, it is interesting and informative to see a perspective from Eastern Europe. However, that said, I have a few problems with the paper, mostly in terms of structure, but also in places with content. Specifically I would like the structure to be tighter. I like the way that you attempt to inform the reader about the past and current Hungarian policy but the manner in which you do this needs some revision as, in its current form, it detracts from the overall message. perhaps a specific section which details the Hungarian model? Fo See Treatment Instead of Punishment in Hungary and Persons Choosing Treatment Instead of Punishment in the Hungarian Health Service sections. rP Replacing from p. 8 to p. 5: “Drug users in Hungary are treated primarily in health care institutions. In 2006, 23% of patients receiving treatment for the first time (1,304 of a total 5,673 persons) received inpatient treatment, 22% (1,247/5,673) received treatment at outpatient centres specializing in addiction, and 50.3% (2,856/5,673) received treatment at outpatient centres specializing in drug use. Blue Point Drug Counselling and Outpatient Centre, where we performed our work, is considered to be part of the latter outpatient centre group. At the centres specializing in drug use, an effort is made to integrate the patients’ medical and psychological treatment, whereas the other centres primarily provide medical treatment. About 200 drug users are treated annually at residential, primarily therapeutic, community-type institutions outside the health care system. In 2006, 853 outpatient clients participated in methadone maintenance treatment. Treatment institutions are financed by the National Health Fund regardless of their legal status (health care or non-governmental organizations). The funding basically follows the number of treated clients; if they have fewer clients they receive less money. Treatment institutions receive the same amount money for TIP and non-TIP clients. In “educationprevention” TIP services, which are described below, clients are financed by another government fund, so treatment institutions who deal with these kinds of clients receive extra financing. In 2004, 260 treatment institutions were involved in providing TIP; however, 15 institutions treated 85% of the TIP clients (Vitrai et al., 2009).” iew ev rR ee ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 I would also like to see a re-write of the introduction which I found to be confusing - in short I didn't really know what your paper intended to do. Our goal was to evaluate whether we treat those who are in need of treatment (by the measure of TIP) or treat drug users who do not need treatment (because of TIP), in case TIP is ineffective or does not reach its target group (i.e. drug users in a “severe” state and in need of treatment). In terms of content, you make some good points in your discussion but some of your conclusions are not based on evidence but on 'feelings' and assumptions, especially when discussing the impact of TIP on the wider service provision. You are probably correct in these assertions but it might be useful to back URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk 1 Page 43 of 44 those assertions with reference to other countries' experiences on the effect of quasi-compulsory treatment regimes. There is a body of literature out there which you might like to examine and perhaps refer to. Reply: p. 21-22 As we mentioned, the QCT model was introduced in Europe. A study carried out in five European countries revealed that “QCT can be a valuable route into treatment for some people who are having problems with drug use but are not willing or able to enter treatment without a ‘push’ from the criminal justice system” (Stevens et al., 2006, p. 208). QCT clients are drug offenders, not “simple” drug abusers. Stevens et al. (2005) summarized their literature review published in French, German, Dutch, and Italian and compared it to reviews in the English literature, “Some common points have been found, such as the consistent correlation of dependent drug use and criminal behaviour, and the existence of studies that show that coerced treatment can have a similar outcome to voluntary treatment. However, the study has shown a greater range of outcomes, with more reports of negative results of QCT, than is found by reviewing only the English literature” (Stevens et al., 2005, p. 277). The authors also concluded that “policy and practical decisions are being made in the absence of conclusive evidence on which to base them” (Stevens et al., 2007, p. 276). Certainly, this is the point our study wanted to emphasize. Fo rR Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author ee rP This is article gives investigates an aspect of Hungarian drug policy, which is relevant also for other countries, and more specifically it gives interesting insights into (unintended) consequences of a drug policy that let drug users choose between being criminals or patients (or individuals in need of re-socialization). The suggested changes and additions are: ev 1. First of all the language needs a brush up. At times the text is difficult to read. This is particularly a problem page 3 lines 29-51 where the study is presented. iew 2. There is need of some information about how the screening procedures at the clinic work. Because one question the reader is left with is why some drug users are transferred to prevention education and why some drug users, who according to the research do not have problems that need treatment, are kept at the clinic? On In Hungary there is no “screening” as it used in, for example, the U.S. We can state only this on p. 8: “In the assessment phase, the patient ASI is calculated and, after a psychiatric examination, their treatment plan devised.” and “The centre has an obligation to provide any kind of drug services for the inhabitants where the clinic is located.” ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy 3. Related to the point above, there is need for some information about possible incentives to keep drug users with no problems at the clinic. Are there economic incentives? How does the clinic get its funding? What difference would it make for the clinic to have fewer clients? Do we find similar results in public clinics? A citation was added on p. 18: URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk 2 Page 44 of 44 Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy “However, the characteristics of the sample (ratio of drugs used, age, and sex) were similar to the national data that has been gathered (Felvinczi & Nyírády és Portörő, 2007; Vitrai et al., 2009).” In other words, suggesting some other possible explanations than the clinic becoming ‘complacent’ (p19). p.5 Treatment institutions are financed by the National Health Fund regardless of their legal status (health care or non-governmental organizations). The funding basically follows the number of treated clients; if they have fewer clients they receive less money. Treatment institutions receive the same amount money for TIP and non-TIP clients. In “education-prevention” TIP services, which are described below, clients are financed by another government fund, so treatment institutions who deal with these kinds of clients receive extra financing. p. 18 Fo “…because of extra financing for the education-prevention service for TIP drug users without problems, treatment institutions keep them for the obligatory 6 months.” ee Also p. 5. rP “Treatment institutions receive the same amount money for TIP and non-TIP clients. In “education-prevention” TIP services, which are described below, clients are financed by another government fund, so treatment institutions who deal with these kinds of clients receive extra financing.” ev rR 4. Related to point 3 above, it would be nice with some estimate of how many drug users in need of treatment who go without treatment. Probably such assessments exist. There is no such estimation. iew 5. At page 14 it is a bit difficult to understand the distinction between categories 1 and 2. It becomes clear when you read the text, but I think the categories should be clearly defined here. It is probably a matter of expression. ly p 15-16 added: Group 1: “serious problems”. Group 2: “less serious problems”. On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 It would also improve the text to get a little more to know about how non-tip patients are recruited and how high/low-threshold the clinic is. p. 8 “In 2006, 393 drug users being treated for the first time came to Blue Point. The centre is the third busiest in Hungary, and it operates in an abstinence-oriented approach. Clients come voluntarily from the whole country, but mostly from the capital, or they can be referred by TIP.” URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cdep Email: B.Thom@mdx.ac.uk 3