Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38172882›Full record

ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2024

Shared decision-making and client-reported dose satisfaction in a longitudinal cohort receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT).

Scott Beaumont, Tianna Magel, Scott MacDonald, Scott Harrison, Martin Schechter, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Scott BeaumontSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. scott.beaumont@ubc.ca.
Tianna MagelSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Scott MacDonaldProvidence Health Care, Providence Crosstown Clinic, 77 E Hastings St, Vancouver, BC, V6A 2R7, Canada.
Scott HarrisonUrban Health and Substance Use, Providence Health Care, St. Paul's Hospital, 1081 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada.
Martin SchechterSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Eugenia Oviedo-JoekesSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CASt. Paul's Hospital · CAProvidence Health Care · CA

Funding

CIHR MOP-142443
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcross different types of oral Opioid Agonist Treatment for people with Opioid Use Disorder, receiving a dose that meets their needs is associated with better outcomes. Evidence also shows patients are more likely to receive an "adequate dose" when their prescribers are involving them in decision making. Neither of these findings have been studied in the context of injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment, which is the purpose of this study.

methodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of an 18-month prospective longitudinal cohort study of 131 people receiving injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment. In the 18-month study, observations were collected every two months for one year, and then once more at 18 months. At 6 months, participants were asked whether their dose was satisfactory to them (outcome variable). Generalized Estimating Equations were used, to account for multiple observations from each participant. The final multivariate model was built using a stepwise approach.

resultsFive hundred forty-five participant-observations were included in the analysis. Participant-observations were grouped by "dose is satisfactory" and "wants higher dose". From unadjusted analyses, participants were less likely to report being satisfied with their dose if they: were Indigenous, had worse psychological or physical health problems, had ever attempted suicide, were younger when they first injected any drug, were a current smoker, felt troubled by drug problems, gave their medication a lower "drug liking" score, and felt that their doctor was not including them in decisions the way they wanted to be. In the final multivariate model, all previously significant associations except for "current smoker" and "troubled by drug problems" were no longer significant after the addition of the "drug liking" score.

conclusionsPatients in injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment who are not satisfied with their dose are more likely to: be troubled by drug problems, be a current smoker, and report liking their medication less than dose-satisfied patients. Prescribers' practicing shared decision-making can help patients achieve dose-satisfaction and possibly alleviate troubles from drug problems. Additionally, receiving a satisfactory dose may be dependent on patients being able to access an opioid agonist medication (and formulation) that they like.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidOpioid-Related DisordersHumansLongitudinal StudiesProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesAnalgesics, OpioidDose adequacyInjectable opioid agonist treatmentOpioid use disorderPerson-centered careShared decision makingSubstance use

Identifiers

PMID38172882
PMCPMC10763140
OpenAlexW4390571808

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.