Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36759173›Full record

Observational studyEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2023

Prospective study of retention in opioid agonist treatment and contact with emergency healthcare following release from prisons in Victoria, Australia.

Michael Curtis, Anna L Wilkinson, Paul Dietze, Ashleigh Cara Stewart, Stuart A Kinner, Reece David Cossar, Emily Nehme, Campbell Aitken, Shelley Walker, Tony Butler and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2023. 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
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 9 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Michael CurtisDisease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia michael.curtis@burnet.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1814-0867
Anna L WilkinsonDisease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paul DietzeDisease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ashleigh Cara StewartDisease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Stuart A KinnerSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Reece David CossarDisease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4860-1342
Emily NehmeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1579-9279
Campbell AitkenDisease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Shelley WalkerDisease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Tony ButlerJustice Health Research Program, School of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca J WinterDisease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Karen SmithSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Mark StooveDisease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Burnet Institute · AUAmbulance Victoria · AUGriffith University · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople recently released from prison engage with emergency healthcare at greater rates than the general population. While retention in opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is associated with substantial reductions in the risk of opioid-related mortality postrelease, it is unknown how OAT affects contact with emergency healthcare. In a cohort of men who injected drugs regularly prior to imprisonment, we described rates of contact with ambulance services and EDs, and their associations with use of OAT, in the 3 months after release from prison.

methodsSelf-report data from a prospective observational cohort of men who regularly injected drugs before a period of sentenced imprisonment, recruited between September 2014 and May 2016, were linked to state-wide ambulance and ED records over a 3-month postrelease period in Victoria, Australia. We used generalised linear models to estimate associations between OAT use (none/interrupted/retained) and contact with ambulance and EDs postrelease, adjusted for other covariates.

resultsAmong 265 participants, we observed 77 ambulance contacts and 123 ED contacts over a median of 98 days of observation (IQR 87-125 days). Participants who were retained in OAT between prison release and scheduled 3-month postrelease follow-up interviews had lower rates of contact with ambulance (adjusted incidence rate ratio (AIRR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.76) and ED (AIRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.83), compared with participants with no OAT use postrelease. Participants with interrupted OAT use did not differ from those with no OAT use in rates of contact with ambulance or ED.

conclusionWe found lower rates of contact with emergency healthcare after release among people retained in OAT, but not among people reporting interrupted OAT use, underscoring the benefits of postrelease OAT retention. Strategies to improve accessibility and support OAT retention after leaving prison are important for men who inject drugs.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidOpioid-Related DisordersDelivery of Health CareHumansMalePrisonsProspective StudiesVictoriaAnalgesics, Opioiddrug abusedrug overdosesepidemiologysubstance-related disorders

Identifiers

PMID36759173
PMCPMC10176422
OpenAlexW4319719485

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.