Results of drug treatment programs may depend not so much on the inherent validity of the program itself, as on its fitness to the background of the individual addict. Certain personal background variables of heroin addicts undergoing treatment in three programs are examined and compared to determine if any significant differences exist among them. Such variables as language ability, age, education, ethnic and religious background, marital status, and parental discipline appear to be significant. These variables are discussed in relation to the prognosis of an individual in one or another of the programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DavisW. N., The Treatment of Drug Addiction: Some Comparative Observations, British Journal of Addiction, 65, 227–35 (November, 1970).
2.
BrillL. and LiebermanL., Authority and Addiction, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1969.
BorielloR. and WolfR. C., Drug Addiction: An Effective Therapeutic Approach, Medical Times, 98(9), 185–193 (September, 1970).
8.
GarnettD. L., “Synanon The Communiversity,”The Humanist, 185–189 (September-October, 1965).
9.
EganDaniel, Aftercare of Drug Addicts: The Missing Link in Rehabilitation, Illinois Medical Journal, 130(4), 500–512 (1966).
10.
LouriaD., The Drug Scene, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, 1968.
11.
DoleV. P. and NyswanderM., Study of Methadone as an Adjunct in Rehabilitation of Heroin Addicts, Illinois Medical Journal, 130(4), 487–88 (October, 1966).
12.
WilkersonDon, The Gutter and the Ghetto, Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood, N.J., 1969.
13.
DoleV. P. and NyswanderM., Medical Treatment for Diacetyl Morphine (Heroin) Addiction: A Clinical Trial with Methadone Hydrochloride, JAMA, 193, 646 (1965).
14.
LaRoucheM. and DonlonP., Heroin Addiction: A Comparison of Two In-patient Treatment Methods, Michigan Medicine, 69(752) (September, 1970).
