ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2024
A social network analysis approach to assess COVID19-related disruption to substance use treatment and informal social interactions among people who use drugs in Scotland.
Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo assess the extent of Coronavirus-related disruption to health and social care treatment and social interactions among people with lived or living experience of substance use in Scotland, and explore potential reasons for variations in disruption.
designCross sectional mixed methods interview, incorporating a social network 'egonet interview' approach asking about whether participants had interactions with a range of substance use, health, social care or third sector organisations, or informal social interactions.
settingFive Alcohol and Drug Partnership Areas in Scotland.
participants57 (42% women) participants were involved in the study, on average 42 years old. MEASUREMENTS: Five-point Likert scale reporting whether interactions with a range of services and people had gotten much better, better, no different (or no change), worse, or much worse since COVID19 and lockdown. Ratings were nested within participants (Individuals provided multiple ratings) and some ratings were also nested within treatment service (services received multiple ratings). The nested structure was accounted for using cross classified ordinal logistic multilevel models.
findingsWhile the overall average suggested only a slight negative change in interactions (mean rating 2.93), there were substantial variations according to type of interaction, and between individuals. Reported change was more often negative for mental health services (Adjusted OR = 0.93 95% CI 0.17,0.90), and positive for pharmacies (3.03 95% CI 1.36, 5.93). The models found between-participant variation of around 10%, and negligible between-service variation of around 1% in ratings. Ratings didn't vary by individual age or gender but there was variation between areas.
conclusionsSubstance use treatment service adaptations due to COVID19 lockdown led to both positive and negative service user experiences. Social network methods provide an effective way to describe complex system-wide interaction patterns, and to measure variations at the individual, service, and area level.
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.