Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34895346›Full record

ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2021

Rural opioid treatment program patient perspectives on take-home methadone policy changes during COVID-19: a qualitative thematic analysis.

Ximena A Levander, Kim A Hoffman, John W McIlveen, Dennis McCarty, Javier Ponce Terashima, P Todd Korthuis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ximena A LevanderDivision of General Internal Medicine & Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Addiction Medicine Section, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road Mail Code - L475, Portland, OR, 97239-3098, USA. levander@ohsu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4919-7492
Kim A HoffmanOregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public Health, Portland, OR, USA.
John W McIlveenOregon Health Authority State Opioid Treatment Authority, Salem, OR, USA.
Dennis McCartyOregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public Health, Portland, OR, USA.
Javier Ponce TerashimaDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
P Todd KorthuisDivision of General Internal Medicine & Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Addiction Medicine Section, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road Mail Code - L475, Portland, OR, 97239-3098, USA.
Portland State University · USOregon Health Authority · USOregon Health & Science University · USYale University · US

Funding

Western States Node of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (TMS for CUD) UG1DA015815 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Keith N. Humphreys, Philip Todd Korthuis · 2015 to 2026
$24.6M
Oregon HIV/Hepatitis and Opioid Prevention and Engagement (OR-HOPE) Study Cost ExtensionUH3DA044831 · NIDA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI KORTHUIS, PHILIP TODD · 2019 to 2022
$4.0M
NIDA NIH HHS 3UH DA044831-03S1NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA015815NIDA NIH HHS UG1DA015815NIDA NIH HHS UH3 DA044831
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the United States, methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly regulated. Federal agencies announced guidelines in March 2020 allowing for relaxation of take-home methadone dispensing at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) to improve treatment access and reduce COVID-19 transmission risk during the public health emergency. We explored patient perspectives at three OTPs serving rural communities on how take-home policy changes were received and implemented and how these changes impacted their addiction treatment and recovery.

methodsWe completed semi-structured individual qualitative interviews in 2 phases: (1) August-October 2020 and (2) November 2020-January 2021 (total n = 46), anticipating possible policy changes as the pandemic progressed. We interviewed patients with OUD enrolled at 3 rural OTPs in Oregon. Participants received varying take-home methadone allowances following the COVID-19-related policy changes. All interviews were conducted via phone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. We conducted a thematic analysis, iteratively coding transcripts, and deductively and inductively generating codes.

resultsThe 46 participants included 50% women and 89% had Medicaid insurance. Three main themes emerged in the analysis, with no differences between study phases: (1) Adapting to changing OTP policies throughout the pandemic; (2) Recognizing the benefits, and occasional struggles, with increased take-home methadone dosing; and (3) Continuing policies and procedures post-pandemic. Participants described fears and anxieties around ongoing methadone access and safety concerns prior to OTP policy changes, but quickly adapted as protocols soon seemed "natural." The majority of participants acknowledged significant benefits to increased take-homes independent of reducing COVID-19 infection risk including feeling "more like a normal person," improved recovery support, reduced time traveling, and having more time with family and for work. Looking to a post-pandemic future, participants thought some COVID-19-related safety protocols should continue that would reduce risk of other infections, make OTP settings less stressful, and result in more individualized care.

conclusionsAs the pandemic progressed, study participants adapted to rapidly changing OTP policies. Participants noted many unanticipated benefits to increased take-home methadone and other COVID-19 protocols including strengthened self-efficacy and recovery and reduced interpersonal conflict, with limited evidence of diversion. Patient perspectives should inform future policies to better address the ongoing overdose epidemic.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidCOVID-19HumansMethadonePolicyRural PopulationSARS-CoV-2United StatesAnalgesics, OpioidMethadoneAddiction medicineCOVID-19MethadoneQualitative researchRuralSubstance-related disorder

Identifiers

PMID34895346
PMCPMC8665717
OpenAlexW4200309986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.