AGONIST&ANTAGONIST SUBSTITUTIONS AO3

• One study of support for the use of agonist and antagonist substitution of addictive behaviour is Van Den Brink & Haasen research, in which they did a meta-analysis of studies into the effectiveness of a range of treatments that concluded that methadone is effective as a maintenance treatment. This supports the explanation as meta-analysis is very reliable as it looks at multiple studies and the results are more consistent- it shows that the right amount of dosage will maintain and addicts’ abstinence of their addiction.
• Supporting evidence for the Naltrexone is provided by Lahti et at (2010). They found significant decreases in gambling levels, although they highlight that further research is needed, for example with a placebo for comparison. This therefore supports the view that naltrexone may be an effective treatment for both substance and behavioural addictions (gambling, as outlined above).
• This is a serious breakthrough as the implications are that it can be used to treat a range of addictions. However, we must acknowledge that more research needs to be conducted in relation to gambling (behavioural) addictions before this is a viable option of treatment
• Methodological issue is that studies does not always follow up over a long period of time. It's common for relapses in addiction to occur monthly or yearly after a person becomes clean and research may not pick up on this as it is not being monitored. This is a further methodological issue and demonstrates that research, if not longitudinal, may not pick up on addicts relapsing after a long period of time as research only tends to look at effects of short-term treatment.
• Firstly, there is a danger of overdose if an addict combines methadone with other drugs. The Office for National Statistics reported that in 2013, methadone was responsible for 429 deaths in the UK. This is a significant problem and Methadone can lead to more negative impact for some patients rather than providing support.
• One negative social implication is the cost of methadone on public spending. A report by the Centre for Policy Studies (Gyngell,2011) said that prescribing methadone was an ‘expensive failure’ and costs society money, not only for the methadone but for the 320,00 problem drug users on benefits. Thus, highlighting that methadone costs society, a huge amount of money and is an expensive failure and suggests that we should consider alternatives as methadone is not effective. We should invest money in rehabilitation units to help those battling addiction.
• One final implication is that it can reduce criminal activity of addiction is reduced. According to a report by the National Treatment Agency (2009), treating heroin users with methadone has an immediate positive effect on society by reducing their criminality. They suggest that rates of offending are reduced by half when addicts are in treatment. This therefore supports the use of methadone and agonist substitutions as a treatment for addiction, demonstrating that it has a positive impact on society by reducing rates of recidivism, thereby creating a safer society.