ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
A Scoping Review of Data Sources for the Conduct of Policy-Relevant Substance Use Research.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fair allocation strategies for opioid settlements.Health care management science · 2025Article
- Use of Big Data and Ethical Issues for Populations With Substance Use Disorder.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2023Article
- Conceptualizing and Measuring Abatement from the Opioid Epidemic: A Case Study from Pennsylvania.The Milbank quarterly · 2022Article
- Visual Analytics for Data-Driven Understanding of the Substance Use Disorder Epidemic.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveExisting administrative and survey data are critical for understanding the effects of exigent policies on population health outcomes related to opioid, cannabis, and other substance use disorders (SUDs). The objective of this study was to determine the state of the data available for evaluating SUD-related health outcomes.
methodsWe performed a scoping review of national and state government data sources to measure and evaluate the effects of state policy changes on substance use and SUD-related health outcomes and health care use. We used Massachusetts as a case study for availability of relevant state-level data as well as national datasets with state-level indicators available to measure outcomes. We compared key features of each dataset to assess their usefulness for research and policy evaluation. We conducted our review during November 2018-March 2019, and we updated data availability as of March 2019 for all data sources.
resultsWe identified 11 survey datasets, 12 national administrative datasets, and 10 state administrative datasets as being suitable for policy-relevant research and practice purposes. These datasets varied substantially in their usefulness for evaluation and research. Despite substantial data limitations, including prohibitive regulatory and monetary costs to obtain the data and limited availability, these data can be mined to examine a diversity of policy-relevant questions.
conclusionsFindings provide a comprehensive resource for using survey and administrative data to evaluate the health effects of SUD-related policies and interventions. The construction of state-level public health data warehouses or record linkage projects connecting individual-level information in state data sources is valuable for analyzing the effects of policy changes. Understanding strengths and limitations of available data sources is important for ongoing research and evaluation.
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.