| Title |
Perceived barriers to methadone maintenance treatment among Iranian opioid users
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12939-018-0787-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maryam Khazaee-Pool, Maryam Moeeni, Koen Ponnet, Arezoo Fallahi, Leila Jahangiri, Tahereh Pashaei |
| Abstract |
Opioid use is a severe problem in Iran. Despite methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) programs being one of the most important treatment strategies for reducing individual and public harms associated with opioid use, a large proportion of Iranian patients refuse to participate in such treatment programs. The present study aims to explore the beliefs and attitudes toward MMT programs of opioid-dependent patients who were participating or had participated in methadone therapy. In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 opioid users between 27 and 58 years of age from Kurdistan provinces. Overall, six themes were discovered to be key barriers relating to methadone treatment, including financial barriers related to methadone treatment, lack of awareness about methadone treatment, negative attitudes regarding using methadone, worries about methadone's side effects, social stigma ascribed to methadone therapy, and systemic barriers to methadone treatment. Our study revealed that the cost of treatment is a major obstacle to attending and continuing at MMT programs and that addicts and their families are not always accurately informed about the duration of MMT programs and the side effects of methadone treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 19% |
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 34 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 16% |
| Psychology | 11 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 34 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,046,041
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#738
of 1,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,509
of 328,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#25
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.