ArticleJAMA network open2019
Comparison of Rural vs Urban Direct-to-Physician Commercial Promotion of Medications for Treating Opioid Use Disorder.
Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metro/Nonmetro Migration as a Risk Factor for Opioid Use Disorder Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries: A Longitudinal Analysis of 2013-2018 Data.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2025Article
- Trends in use of tobacco and cannabis across different alcohol consumption levels in the United States, 2010-19.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2024Article
- Health Disparities among Rural Individuals with Mental Health Conditions: A Systematic Literature Review.Rural mental health · 2023Article
- A scoping review of community-based post-opioid overdose intervention programs: implications of program structure and outcomes.Health & justice · 2023Article
- The Association Between Scope of Practice Regulations and Nurse Practitioner Prescribing of Buprenorphine After the 2016 Opioid Bill.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: In the United States, access to medications prescribed for opioid use disorder (OUD) is lower in rural counties than in urban counties. Considering the positive associations between direct-to-physician promotion of opiates and OUD medications and their prescribing rates, a study examining the association between pharmaceutical promotion of these medications and county-level rurality has merit. Objective: To assess whether rural counties received less pharmaceutical promotion of OUD medications compared with urban counties. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional county-level study used all reported direct-to-physician pharmaceutical payments from manufacturers of medications prescribed for OUD from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017, as well as demographic and economic data at the county level from 3140 US counties. Logistic regression was used with year and state-level fixed effects to compare rural county and urban county odds of receiving any promotion of OUD medications. A negative binomial model was used with year and state-level fixed effects to compare the mean pharmaceutical payments per physician and per population in rural vs urban counties. Main Outcomes and Measures: A binary indicator for whether physicians in a county received any promotion related to OUD medications in a year. The second outcome was the value of promotion (eg, meals), with dollar amount of payments for each county by year. Counties were separated into metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural categories using the National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme. Results: Of 3140 US counties with 18 318 physicians to whom promotion of OUD medications was directed, 1166 (37.1%) were metropolitan (16 740 physicians [91.4%]), 641 (20.4%) were micropolitan (1049 physicians [5.7%]), and 1333 (42.5%) were rural (529 physicians [2.9%]). Compared with physicians in metropolitan counties, physicians in rural counties had reduced odds of receiving any promotion (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.74) and received lower payments (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.17-0.34). Conclusions and Relevance: The study findings suggest that promotion for OUD medications is less likely to occur in rural counties and that this difference in promotion of OUD medications may be associated with differential commercial costs and benefits of promotion in rural settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.