Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39476790›Full record

ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2024

Framework for opioid use disorder screening and diagnosis in carceral settings.

Helen E Jack, Catherine L Smith, Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, Justin Berk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal on drug policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Helen E JackDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 325 9th Avenue, Box 359780, 98104 Seattle, WA, USA; Washington State Department of Corrections, 7345 Linderson Way SW, 98501 Tumwater, WA, USA. Electronic address: HJack@uw.edu.
Catherine L SmithWashington State Department of Corrections, 7345 Linderson Way SW, 98501 Tumwater, WA, USA.
Lauren Brinkley-RubinsteinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, 215 Morris Street, 27701, Durham, NC, USA.
Justin BerkDepartments of Medicine and Pediatrics, Alpert Medical School at Brown University, 245 Chapman St, Ste 100, 02905 Providence, RI, USA.

Funding

University of Washington Developmental AIDS Research Center for Mental Health (UW ARCH)P30MH123248 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SIMONI, JANE M. · 2021 to 2024
$5.8M
Injectable Extended-Release Buprenorphine (XR-B) in a Correctional Setting: A Pilot Randomized Controlled TrialK23DA055695 · NIDA · RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL · PI Justin Berk · 2022 to 2026
$1.0M
Practice facilitation and supervision to strengthen depression treatment in primary care in ZimbabweK23MH129420 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Helen Elizabeth Jack · 2022 to 2026
$922k
NIDA NIH HHS K23 DA055695NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH129420NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH123248
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the United States, the opioid overdose crisis disproportionately affects incarcerated individuals, with opioid overdose risk in the two weeks after release 50 times higher than the general population. As a response, many prisons and jails are starting to offer medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including methadone or buprenorphine, during incarceration or prior to release. One implementation barrier is how to identify who would benefit from treatment, given that opioid use disorder screening and diagnostic testing are imperfect, particularly in criminal-legal settings. Prisons and jails use a variety of OUD assessment strategies, including brief self-report screening tools, diagnostic interviews, review of pre-incarceration medical records, and urine drug screening, all of which may lead to false positive and false negative results. In this essay, we apply a common framework from epidemiology and other fields to conceptualize OUD assessment in carceral settings: individuals assessed for OUD can be those with OUD who are correctly offered MOUD ("true positives"), those without OUD who are offered MOUD ("false positives"), those with OUD who are not offered MOUD ("false negatives"), and those without MOUD who are not offered MOUD ("true negatives"). We discuss these assessment and treatment outcomes from the perspectives of people who are incarcerated, security staff, and healthcare staff. This framework may inform discussions between medical staff and security personnel on the implementation of MOUD programs.

Indexed as

BuprenorphineOpiate Substitution TreatmentOpioid-Related DisordersSubstance Abuse DetectionAnalgesics, OpioidHumansJailsMass ScreeningMethadoneOpiate OverdosePrisonersPrisonsUnited StatesAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineMethadoneIncarcerationJailOpioid use disorderPrisonScreening

Identifiers

PMID39476790
PMCPMC11806496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.