Observational studyAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025
Public perceptions of opioid misuse recovery and related resources in a nationally representative sample of United States adults.
Observational study in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Willingness to receive medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD): A longitudinal analysis of social network support.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo understand how the US public defines recovery from opioid misuse and the recovery-related resources it views as most helpful, and to compare differences by opioid misuse history and demographic characteristics.
designObservational study of data from the nationally representative AmeriSpeak® Panel survey administered in October/November 2021.
settingUnited States.
participants6515 adults (≥ 18 years). MEASUREMENTS: Respondents ranked 10 definitions of recovery (religious in nature; spiritual in nature; physical/mental in nature; contributing to society; enhanced quality of life; seeking professional help; having a sense of purpose; moderate/controlled substance use; no drug use; abstaining from all substance use) and 9 resources that might contribute to recovery (primary care physician; intensive inpatient program; residential rehabilitation program; self-help group; therapist/psychologist/social worker; prescribed medication; talking to family/friends; spiritual/natural healer; faith-based organization). We explored differences in rankings by opioid misuse history (personal vs. family/friend vs. no history) and demographic characteristics (race, sex, age) using multivariable ordinal logistic regression.
findingsSeeking professional help was the most endorsed recovery definition overall [mean (M) = 6.97, standard error (SE) = 0.03]. Those with personal opioid misuse history ranked enhanced quality of life (B = 0.16, P = 0.049) and having a sense of purpose (B = 0.16, P = 0.029) significantly higher, and ranked abstaining from substance use (B = -0.20, P = 0.009) significantly lower as recovery definitions than those without a history of opioid misuse. Compared with White respondents, Black (B = 0.60, P < 0.001) and Hispanic (B = 0.55, P < 0.001) respondents defined recovery as more religious in nature. Residential rehabilitation program was identified as the most helpful resource for recovery (M = 7.16, SE = 0.02), while prescribed medication received a relatively low ranking overall (M = 4.05, SE = 0.03). Those with family/friend opioid misuse history ranked prescribed medication as less helpful than others (B = -0.14, P = 0.003).
conclusionsThe general US public's views around recovery from opioid misuse appear to focus on abstinence and formal treatment receipt, while people with a history of opioid misuse place less emphasis on abstinence and greater emphasis on other aspects of well-being.
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.