ArticleJournal of addiction medicine
Expert Views on State Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Analysis of an Online Modified Delphi Process.
Article in Journal of addiction medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creating a Classification System of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Policies: A Research Protocol.Substance use & addiction journal · 2025Article
- ROMPER: The RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings.MethodsX · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to examine expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of state policies to improve engagement and retention in treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD).
methodsWe conducted a 3-round modified Delphi process using the online ExpertLens platform. Participants included 66 experts on OUD treatment policies. Experts commented on 14 hypothetical state policies targeting treatment engagement and quality of care. Using the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework, we conducted reflexive thematic analysis to develop patterns of meaning from the dataset.
resultsOnly policies for providing continued access to evidence-based treatment for highly at-risk populations, settings, and periods were seen as effective in meaningfully reducing population-level opioid-related overdose mortality. Experts commented that, although the general public increasingly supports policies expanding medications for OUD and evidence-based care, ongoing stigma about OUD encourages public acceptance of punitive and paternalistic policies. Experts viewed all policies as at least moderately feasible given the current infrastructure and resources, with affordability reliant on long-term cost savings from reduced opioid-related harms. Equitability depended on whether experts perceived a policy as inherently equitable in its design as well as concerns about the potential for inequitable implementation due to structural oppression and interpersonal biases in criminal-legal, healthcare, and other systems.
conclusionsExperts believe that supportive (rather than punitive) policies improve engagement and retention in OUD treatment. States could prioritize implementing supportive policies that are patient-centered and take a harm-reduction approach to enhance medications for OUD access and utilization. States could consider deimplementing punitive policies that are coercive, take an abstinence-only approach, and use punitive and restrictive measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.