Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35639699›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022

Modeling the evolution of the US opioid crisis for national policy development.

Tse Yang Lim, Erin J Stringfellow, Celia A Stafford, Catherine DiGennaro, Jack B Homer, Wayne Wakeland, Sara L Eggers, Reza Kazemi, Lukas Glos, Emily G Ewing and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Trial
  2. Applied behavioral and decision sciences in support of US FDA's drug regulatory mission.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  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

14 authors.

Tse Yang LimSloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.ORCID 0000-0001-5084-0911
Erin J StringfellowMassachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115.
Celia A StaffordMassachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115.
Catherine DiGennaroMassachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115.
Jack B HomerSloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.ORCID 0000-0003-3690-9892
Wayne WakelandSystems Science Program, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201.ORCID 0000-0001-5069-3958
Sara L EggersCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Reza KazemiCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Lukas GlosCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993.ORCID 0000-0003-2584-4122
Emily G EwingCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993.ORCID 0000-0002-5812-989X
Calvin B BannisterCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Keith HumphreysVeterans Affairs Health Services Research Center, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
Douglas C ThrockmortonCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Mohammad S JalaliSloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.ORCID 0000-0001-6769-2732

Funding

FDA HHS U01 FD006868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The opioid crisis is a major public health challenge in the United States, killing about 70,000 people in 2020 alone. Long delays and feedbacks between policy actions and their effects on drug-use behavior create dynamic complexity, complicating policy decision-making. In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for a quantitative systems model to help understand and address this complexity and guide policy decisions. Here, we present SOURCE (Simulation of Opioid Use, Response, Consequences, and Effects), a dynamic simulation model developed in response to that charge. SOURCE tracks the US population aged ≥12 y through the stages of prescription and illicit opioid (e.g., heroin, illicit fentanyl) misuse and use disorder, addiction treatment, remission, and overdose death. Using data spanning from 1999 to 2020, we highlight how risks of drug use initiation and overdose have evolved in response to essential endogenous feedback mechanisms, including: 1) social influence on drug use initiation and escalation among people who use opioids; 2) risk perception and response based on overdose mortality, influencing potential new initiates; and 3) capacity limits on treatment engagement; as well as other drivers, such as 4) supply-side changes in prescription opioid and heroin availability; and 5) the competing influences of illicit fentanyl and overdose death prevention efforts. Our estimates yield a more nuanced understanding of the historical trajectory of the crisis, providing a basis for projecting future scenarios and informing policy planning.

Indexed as

Drug OverdoseModels, TheoreticalOpioid EpidemicOpioid-Related DisordersPolicy MakingHealth PolicyHumansPublic HealthRiskUnited Statesfentanylheroinoverdose mortalityprescription opioidssimulation modeling

Identifiers

PMID35639699
PMCPMC9191351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.