ArticleThe International journal on drug policy2024
Framework for opioid use disorder screening and diagnosis in carceral settings.
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.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.