This paper examines the changes and advances in research and clinical practice and examines the role of treatment structure and programme characteristics in the delivery of methadone maintenance. Methadone prescribing has become much more available over the past decade, both in countries with a history of its use, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, and in countries around the world which previously had not endorsed substitute prescribing.1 There is a need to examine closely the framework in which this treatment is delivered to ensure that the modes of delivery most effective from both cost and benefit perspectives are utilised. This review focuses entirely on methadone maintenance because this is the most extensively evaluated and most used treatment, with about a quarter of a million drug misusers receiving methadone treatment globally. A small number of experimental diamorphine and buprenorphine substitute programmes are being evaluated in several countries.

Most studies have come from the United States and focus on the long term use of methadone in a specific setting; in contrast, methadone treatment in the United Kingdom has received virtually no formal evaluation to date bar one study.2 There is concern that a considerable amount of the methadone prescribing could be having little impact on illicit drug use or risk taking behaviour,3 a recent study of drug users in police custody echoes this.4 The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended a shift to a more structured approach for delivery of oral methadone maintenance.

The organisation and regulation of methadone maintenance treatment varies widely, with explicit guidelines for programme operation in the United States and Australia and a virtual absence of structure and regulation in Britain. It is likely that policy analysts and treatment providers in countries with high levels of regulation and structured programmes …