Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32031650›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Differences in Availability and Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Residential Treatment Settings in the United States.

Andrew S Huhn, J Gregory Hobelmann, Justin C Strickland, George A Oyler, Cecilia L Bergeria, Annie Umbricht, Kelly E Dunn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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.

Andrew S HuhnDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
J Gregory HobelmannDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Justin C StricklandDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
George A OylerAshley Addiction Treatment, Havre de Grace, Maryland.
Cecilia L BergeriaDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Annie UmbrichtDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Kelly E DunnDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins Medicine · USJohns Hopkins University · USGrace (United States) · US

Funding

HUMAN BEHAVIORAL PHARMACOLOGY OF SUBSTANCE ABUSET32DA007209 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Eric C. Strain, Elise M Weerts · 1985 to 2026
$12.9M
Using Cannabinoids to Enhance Opioid Analgesic Effects in HumansR01DA040644 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CAMPBELL, CLAUDIA MICHELLE, DUNN, KELLY E · 2016 to 2021
$3.4M
A118G SNP and OPRM1 Gene Opioid-Mediated Effects in HumansR01DA035246 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DUNN, KELLY E · 2014 to 2018
$3.2M
Evaluating Suvorexant for Sleep Disturbance in Opioid Use DisorderUG3DA048734 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DUNN, KELLY E, HUHN, ANDREW S · 2019 to 2020
$2.2M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA035246NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA040644NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA007209NIDA NIH HHS UG3 DA048734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: While many individuals with opioid use disorder seek treatment at residential facilities to initiate long-term recovery, the availability and use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) in these facilities is unclear. Objective: To examine differences in MOUD availability and use in residential facilities as a function of Medicaid policy, facility-level factors associated with MOUD availability, and admissions-level factors associated with MOUD use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used deidentified facility-level and admissions-level data from 2863 residential treatment facilities and 232 414 admissions in the United States in 2017. Facility-level data were extracted from the 2017 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, and admissions-level data were extracted from the 2017 Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions. Statistical analyses were conducted from June to November 2019. Exposures: Admissions for opioid use disorder at residential treatment facilities in the United States that identified opioids as the patient's primary drug of choice. Main Outcomes and Measures: Availability and use of 3 MOUDs (ie, extended-release naltrexone, buprenorphine, and methadone). Results: Of 232 414 admissions, 205 612 (88.5%) contained complete demographic data (166 213 [80.8%] aged 25-54 years; 136 854 [66.6%] men; 151 867 [73.9%] white). Among all admissions, MOUDs were used in only 34 058 of 192 336 (17.7%) in states that expanded Medicaid and 775 of 40 078 (1.9%) in states that did not expand Medicaid (P < .001). A relatively low percentage of the 2863 residential treatment facilities in this study offered extended-release naltrexone (854 [29.8%]), buprenorphine (953 [33.3%]), or methadone (60 [2.1%]). Compared with residential facilities that offered at least 1 MOUD, those that offered no MOUDs had lower odds of also offering psychiatric medications (odds ratio [OR], 0.06; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08; Wald χ21 = 542.09; P < .001), being licensed by a state or hospital authority (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; Wald χ21 = 24.28; P < .001), or being accredited by a health organization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.23-0.33; Wald χ21 = 180.91; P < .001). Residential facilities that did not offer any MOUDs had higher odds of accepting cash-only payments than those that offered at least 1 MOUD (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 3.47-6.64; Wald χ21 = 89.65; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of residential addiction treatment facilities in the United States, MOUD availability and use were sparse. Public health and policy efforts to improve access to and use of MOUDs in residential treatment facilities could improve treatment outcomes for individuals with opioid use disorder who are initiating recovery.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineCross-Sectional StudiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMedicaidMethadoneNaltrexoneOpiate Substitution TreatmentOpioid-Related DisordersResidential TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment CentersUnited StatesAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineMethadoneNaltrexone

Identifiers

PMID32031650
PMCPMC8188643
OpenAlexW3005270620

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.