Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35589443›Full record

ArticleJournal of substance abuse treatment2022

Treatment retention, return to use, and recovery support following COVID-19 relaxation of methadone take-home dosing in two rural opioid treatment programs: A mixed methods analysis.

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

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of substance abuse treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.4field-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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Developing and validating measures of take-home methadone with administrative data.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026
    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. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kim A HoffmanOregon Health and Science University-Portland State University, School of Public Health, Portland, OR, United States of America. Electronic address: hoffmaki@ohsu.edu.
Canyon FootDepartment of Medicine, Section of Addiction Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States of America.
Ximena A LevanderDepartment of Medicine, Section of Addiction Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States of America.
Ryan CookDepartment of Medicine, Section of Addiction Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States of America.
Javier Ponce TerashimaYale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America.
John W McIlveenOregon Health Authority, State Opioid Treatment Authority, Salem, OR, United States of America.
P Todd KorthuisOregon Health and Science University-Portland State University, School of Public Health, Portland, OR, United States of America; Department of Medicine, Section of Addiction Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States of America.
Dennis McCartyOregon Health and Science University-Portland State University, School of Public Health, Portland, OR, United States of America; Department of Medicine, Section of Addiction Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States of America.
Oregon Health & Science University · USOregon Health Authority · USPortland State University · USYale University · US

Funding

NW Center of Excellence & K12 in Patient Centered Learning Health Systems ScienceK12HS026370 · AHRQ · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI EDEN, KAREN BEEKMAN, GUISE, JEANNE-MARIE · 2018 to 2022
$4.0M
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
Oregon HIV/Hepatitis and Opioid Prevention and Engagement (OR-HOPE) StudyUG3DA044831 · NIDA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI KORTHUIS, PHILIP TODD · 2017 to 2018
$895k
AHRQ HHS K12 HS026370NIDA NIH HHS UG3 DA044831NIDA NIH HHS UH3 DA044831
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn March 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration permitted Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to relax restrictions on take-home methadone and promoted telehealth to minimize potential exposures to COVID-19. We assessed the effects of COVID-19-related changes on take-home methadone dosing in two OTPs serving five rural Oregon counties.

methodsWe used a mixed-methods convergent design. The OTPs extracted urine drug test (UDT) results, take-home methadone regimens, and treatment retention from the electronic health record (EHR) for patients (n = 377). A mixed-effects negative binomial regression model assessed patient-level differences in take-home doses before and after the COVID-19 policy changes and the associations with treatment discontinuation, and UDT positivity. Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 32) explored patient reactions to increased take-home dosing and reduced clinic visits to provide context for quantitative findings.

resultsThe number of take-home doses increased in the post-COVID-19 period for patients engaged in treatment for more than 180 days (median: 8 vs 13 take-home doses per month, p = 0.011). Take-homes did not increase for patients with fewer days of treatment. Each percentage point increase in take-home dosing above what would be expected without COVID-19 policy changes was negatively associated with the percent of UDT positive for opioids (B = -0.12, CI [-0.21, -0.04], p = 0.005) and the probability of treatment discontinuation (aOR = 0.97, CI [0.95, 0.99], p = 0.003). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes explaining how increased take-home dosing supported recovery: 1) value of feeling trusted with increased responsibility; 2) reduced travel time permitted increased employment and recreation; and 3) reduced exposure to individuals less stable in recovery and potential triggers.

conclusionsTake-home methadone dose relaxations were associated with increased methadone take-home doses, improved retention, and decreased UDT opioid positive results among clinically stable patients. Qualitative findings suggest that fewer take-home restrictions are feasible and desirable and do not pose safety or public health harms.

Indexed as

COVID-19Opioid-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidHumansMethadoneOpiate Substitution TreatmentAnalgesics, OpioidMethadoneCOVID-19Medication for opioid use disorderMethadoneOpioid treatmentRural

Identifiers

PMID35589443
PMCPMC9080674
OpenAlexW4229369096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.