Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30349206›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

Current and future options for opioid use disorder: a survey assessing real-world opinion of service users on novel therapies including depot formulations of buprenorphine.

Mark Gilman, Li Li, Kerrie Hudson, Tara Lumley, Georgia Myers, Camilla Corte, Richard Littlewood

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Nor-LAAM loaded PLGA microparticles for treating opioid use disorder.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mark GilmanDiscovering Health, Manchester, UK, mark@discoveringhealth.co.uk.
Li LiApplied Strategic, London, UK.
Kerrie HudsonThe Well Communities CIC, Lancaster, UK.
Tara LumleyApplied Strategic, London, UK.
Georgia MyersApplied Strategic, London, UK.
Camilla CorteApplied Strategic, London, UK.
Richard LittlewoodApplied Strategic, London, UK.
International Institute for Strategic Studies · GBLancaster University · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIntegrated treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) includes opioid agonist therapy (OAT) such as methadone and buprenorphine with well-evidenced benefits. Treatment with typical existing oral medications is associated with burdens and limits to successful outcomes (frequent dosing, attendance for collection/consumption, difficulty in achieving optimal dosing, misuse, diversion, accidental exposure, and stigma from the treatment process). Novel medications include injected depot formulations with less frequent administration, providing consistent drug levels after dosing. This survey assesses the opinion of those with OUD treatment services lived experience to inform future medication choices. PATIENTS AND

methodsA survey of people with experience of OUD pharmacotherapy - the treatment system - was completed. Participants reviewed statements describing elements of OUD care using 7-point Likert scales to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement. Data were assessed using descriptive analysis.

resultsIn total, 35 people (16 in treatment; 19 with previous history of treatment) completed the survey. Average drug-use duration, 20 years, commonly included injected opioids. The majority agreed treatment was effective, but not tailored to their individual needs and limited normal day-to-day activities. Opinions on novel depot medications included the following: agreement on its potential to make life easier, reduce stigma, free-up time for preferred activities. Participants did not report concerns over the effectiveness and safety of depot medications, nor about reduced contact with treatment services that could be associated with less frequent dosing.

conclusionThis survey provides a useful initial record of the opinions of people experienced in OUD treatment services on novel depot medications, which may result in important benefits. Care providers and policy makers should continue to work with those with lived experience to understand the specific opportunity provided by such innovation.

Indexed as

innovationlived experienceopioid agonist therapy

Identifiers

PMID30349206
PMCPMC6188959
OpenAlexW2897768614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.