Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35820738›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

How the Suboxone Education Programme presented as a solution to risks in the Canadian opioid crisis: a critical discourse analysis.

Abhimanyu Sud, Matthew Strang, Daniel Z Buchman, Sheryl Spithoff, Ross E G Upshur, Fiona Webster, Quinn Grundy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Risk management plans and drug safety in Canada: A cross-sectional study.The International journal of risk & safety in medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Reframing the Overdose Crisis: Stigma, Industry Influence, and the Politics of Abuse-Deterrent Opioids.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026
    Article
  3. Fentanyl Research: Key to Fighting the Opioid Crisis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    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.

Abhimanyu SudDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada abhimanyu.sud@utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8354-6153
Matthew StrangDepartment of Sociology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel Z BuchmanDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sheryl SpithoffDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ross E G UpshurDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Fiona WebsterArthur Labatt Family School of Nursing, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Quinn GrundyLawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7640-8614

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPharmaceutical industry involvement in medical education, research and clinical practice can lead to conflicts of interest. Within this context, this study examined how the 'Suboxone Education Programme', developed and delivered by a pharmaceutical company as part of a federally regulated risk management program, was presented as a solution to various kinds of risks relating to opioid use in public documents from medical institutions across Canada.

settingThese documents were issued during the Canadian opioid crisis, a time when the involvement of industry in health policy was being widely questioned given industry's role in driving the overprescribing of opioid analgesics and contributing to population-level harms.

designA critical discourse analysis of 69 documents collected between July 2020 and May 2021 referencing the Suboxone Education Program spanning 13 years (2007-2021) from medical, nursing and pharmacy institutions sourced from every Canadian province and territory. Discursive themes were identified through iterative and duplicate analyses using a semistructured data extraction instrument.

resultsDocuments characterised the Programme as addressing iatrogenic risks from overprescribing opioid analgesics, environmental risks from a toxic street drug supply and pharmacological risks relating to the dominant therapeutic alternative of methadone. The programme was identified as being able to address these risks by providing mechanisms to surveil healthcare professionals and to facilitate the prescribing of Suboxone. Medical institutions legitimised the Suboxone Education Programme by lending their regulatory, epidemiological and professional authority.

conclusionsAddressing risk is considered as a central, moral responsibility of contemporary healthcare services. In this case, moral imperatives to address opioid crisis-related risks overrode other ethical concerns regarding conflicts of interest between industry and public welfare. Failing to address these conflicts potentially imperils efforts of mitigating population health harms by propagating an important driving force of the opioid crisis.

Indexed as

Opioid EpidemicOpioid-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphine, Naloxone Drug CombinationCanadaHumansAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphine, Naloxone Drug CombinationHealth policyMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAININGQUALITATIVE RESEARCHSubstance misuse

Identifiers

PMID35820738
PMCPMC9277368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.