Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30927021›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2019

Evaluating non-medical prescription opioid demand using commodity purchase tasks: test-retest reliability and incremental validity.

Justin C Strickland, Joshua A Lile, William W Stoops

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review and meta-analysis of delay discounting and cannabis use.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Demand for heroin in rats: effects of non-drug alternative substitutes and complements.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Human laboratory models of reward in substance use disorder.Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Cannabis demand and use among veterans: A prospective examination.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Justin C StricklandDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences, 171 Funkhouser Drive, Lexington, KY, 40506-0044, USA. justrickland@uky.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1077-0394
Joshua A LileDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences, 171 Funkhouser Drive, Lexington, KY, 40506-0044, USA.
William W StoopsDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences, 171 Funkhouser Drive, Lexington, KY, 40506-0044, USA.
University of Kentucky · US

Funding

A Translational Determination of the Mechanisms of Maladaptive Choice in Opioid Use DisorderR01DA047368 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI BECKMANN, JOSHUA, LILE, JOSHUA ANTHONY · 2019 to 2023
$3.1M
National Science Foundation 1247392NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA047368Psi Chi Graduate Research GrantUniversity of Kentucky Department of Behavioral Science Professional Development Funds
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleNon-medical prescription opioid use and opioid use disorder (OUD) present a significant public health concern. Identifying behavioral mechanisms underlying OUD will assist in developing improved prevention and intervention approaches. Behavioral economic demand has been extensively evaluated as a measure of reinforcer valuation for alcohol and cigarettes, whereas prescription opioids have received comparatively little attention.

objectivesUtilize a purchase task procedure to measure the incremental validity and test-retest reliability of opioid demand.

methodsIndividuals reporting past year non-medical prescription opioid use were recruited using the crowdsourcing platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk). Participants completed an opioid purchase task as well as measures of cannabis demand, delay discounting, and self-reported pain. A 1-month follow-up was used to evaluate test-retest reliability.

resultsMore intense and inelastic opioid demand was associated with OUD and more intense cannabis demand was associated with cannabis use disorder. Multivariable models indicated that higher opioid intensity and steeper opioid delay discounting rates each significantly and uniquely predicted OUD. Increased opioid demand intensity, but not elasticity, was associated with higher self-reported pain, and no relationship was observed with perceived pain relief from opioids. Opioid demand showed acceptable-to-good test-retest reliability (e.g., intensity r

conclusionsOpioid demand was incrementally valid and test-retest reliable as measured by purchase tasks. These findings support behavioral economic demand as a clinically useful measure of drug valuation that is sensitive to individual difference variables.

Indexed as

CommodificationEconomics, BehavioralAdultAnalgesics, OpioidDelay DiscountingDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHumansMaleMarijuana SmokingOpioid-Related DisordersPain MeasurementReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSelf ReportSubstance-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidBehavioral economicsCannabisDemandDiscountingmTurkOpioidPainPurchase taskReliability

Identifiers

PMID30927021
PMCPMC6990908
OpenAlexW2935654900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.