Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35357599›Full record

ArticleHealth & justice2022

A national survey of state laws regarding medications for opioid use disorder in problem-solving courts.

Barbara Andraka-Christou, Olivia Randall-Kosich, Matthew Golan, Rachel Totaram, Brendan Saloner, Adam J Gordon, Bradley D Stein

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & justice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Barbara Andraka-ChristouSchool of Global Health Management & Informatics, University of Central Florida, 500 W Livingston Street, Orlando, FL, 32801, USA. barbara.andraka@ucf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6307-6369
Olivia Randall-KosichSchool of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3980-313X
Matthew GolanSchool of Law, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Rachel TotaramSchool of Global Health Management & Informatics, University of Central Florida, 500 W Livingston Street, Orlando, FL, 32801, USA.
Brendan SalonerBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9013-3023
Adam J GordonInformatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2453-8871
Bradley D SteinRAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1544-458X
University of Central Florida · USEmory University · USGeorgia State University · USJohns Hopkins University · USRAND Corporation · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

Optimal Methods for Estimating Policy Effect Heterogeneity in Opioid Policy ResearchP50DA046351 · NIDA · RAND CORPORATION · PI BRADLEY D STEIN · 2018 to 2026
$20.8M
Quality of Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder in Medicaid-enrollees: The Effects of State Policies and IntiativesR01DA045800 · NIDA · RAND CORPORATION · PI STEIN, BRADLEY D · 2018 to 2022
$2.9M
NEUROTOXIC HALLUCINOGENS: EFFECTS ON LEARNINGR01DA004944 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI HARVEY, JOHN A · 1988 to 1992
–
NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA046351NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA045800NIH HHS P50DA046351NIH HHS R01DA045800NIH HHS UG1DA04944
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProblem-solving courts have the potential to help reduce harms associated with the opioid crisis. However, problem-solving courts vary in their policies toward medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), with some courts discouraging or even prohibiting MOUD use. State laws may influence court policies regarding MOUD; thus, we aimed to identify and describe state laws related to MOUD in problem-solving courts across the US from 2005 to 2019.

methodsWe searched Westlaw legal software for regulations and statutes (collectively referred to as "state laws") in all US states and D.C. from 2005 to 2019 and included laws related to both MOUD and problem-solving courts in our analytic sample. We conducted a modified iterative categorization process to identify and analyze categories of laws related to MOUD access in problem-solving courts.

resultsSince 2005, nine states had laws regarding MOUD in problem-solving courts. We identified two overarching categories of state laws: 1) laws that prohibit MOUD bans, and 2) laws potentially facilitating access to MOUD. Seven states had laws that prohibit MOUD bans, such as laws prohibiting exclusion of participants from programs due to MOUD use or limiting the type of MOUD, dose or treatment duration. Four states had laws that could facilitate access to MOUD, such as requiring courts to make MOUD available to participants. DISCUSSION: Relatively few states have laws facilitating MOUD access and/or preventing MOUD bans in problem-solving courts. To help facilitate MOUD access for court participants across the US, model state legislation should be created. Additionally, future research should explore potential effects of state laws on MOUD access and health outcomes for court participants.

Indexed as

BuprenorphineDrug courtMedication for opioid use disorderMethadoneProblem-solving courtsState law

Identifiers

PMID35357599
PMCPMC8969254
OpenAlexW4221072482

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.