Table 5

Impact of heroin maintenance programme on social integration and illegal activities, Geneva, 1995–6. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise

VariableExperimental group (n=27)Control group (n=21)P value for difference between groups
BaselineFollow upBaselineFollow up
No accommodation 7 (26)0*4 (19)1 (5)  1.00§
Has stable partner11 (41)12 (44)6 (29)7 (33)1.00
Lives with drug user11 (41)10 (37)6 (29)3 (14)1.00
All or most friends outside drug scene 5 (18)10 (37)5 (24)9 (43)0.52
Occupational status:
  Neither work nor social security10 (37) 6 (22)8 (38)4 (19)1.00
  Employment 4 (15) 6 (22)4 (19)3 (14)0.40
  Social security, no employment13 (48)15 (56)9 (43)14 (67) 0.44
Occupational status described as “living off the street”21 (78)    5 (18)***13 (62) 8 (38)1.00
Mean (SD) No of days worked in past 6 months18.7 (29.8)18.5 (30.0)16.7 (30.9) 8.8 (20.4)0.36
Commercial sex in past 6 months 4 (15) 3 (11)2 (10)2 (10)1.00
Charges in past 6 months:
  Drug use/possession11 (41)  3 (11)*2 (10)8 (38) 0.008
  Drug dealing 7 (26)0*1 (5) 2 (10) 0.067
  Property/theft 7 (26) 1 (4)*2 (10)5 (24) 0.015
  Aggression 3 (11)1 (4)1 (5) 1 (5) 1.00
  Traffic offence2 (7)01 (5) 01.00
  Other 3 (11)003 (14)0.10
Any charge in past 6 months20 (74)    5 (19)***7 (33)12 (57)   0.0004
Mean (SD) total number of charges in past 6 months2.1 (2.2)   0.2 (0.5)***0.4 (0.7) 1.1 (1.3)* <0.0001
  • † Significance of comparisons between baseline and follow up denoted by *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001. Continuous variables: Wilcoxon matched pairs rank sum test (exact), dichotomous variables: McNemar's test (exact).

  • ‡ Continuous variables: Mann-Whitney U test (exact), dichotomous variables: test of homogeneity of McNemar odds ratio (exact).

  • § Fisher's exact test on proportion of subjects without accommodation at baseline who found accommodation on follow up.