Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39496371›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Expansion and evaluation of level II and III recovery residences for people taking medications for an opioid use disorder: project HOMES (Housing for MAR Expanded Services) study protocol.

J M Wilkerson, Kathryn R Gallardo, Serena Rodriguez, Henry Shelton Brown, Cecilia M Ganduglia Cazaban, James J Yang, Estevan R Herrera, Isaiah Niles Zoschke, Hannah L N Stewart, Sheryl A McCurdy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Sexual Health and Relationship Education Needs of People in Recovery for an Opioid Use Disorder.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

J M WilkersonSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA Johnny.M.Wilkerson@uth.tmc.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0815-8577
Kathryn R GallardoSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Serena RodriguezSchool of Public Health, University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4466-6002
Henry Shelton BrownAustin Regional Campus Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, School of Public Health, University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA.
Cecilia M Ganduglia CazabanSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
James J YangSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Estevan R HerreraSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Isaiah Niles ZoschkeSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5207-6419
Hannah L N StewartSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2536-9405
Sheryl A McCurdySchool of Public Health, University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0526-1608

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs the US continues to battle the opioid epidemic, recovery residences remain valuable services for people in recovery. While there is a growing body of literature describing positive outcomes experienced by people who live in recovery residences, little is known about the experience of people who live in these residences while taking medications for an opioid use disorder (MOUD) as part of their recovery. Thus, this study has three aims: (1) expand the availability of recovery residences that meet the National Alliance for Recovery Residences standards in Texas and serve individuals taking medications for an opioid use disorder as part of their recovery; (2) evaluate recovery residences for people taking MOUD as part of their recovery; and (3) compare the cost-effectiveness of recovery residences to treatment-as-usual. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In collaboration with community partners, we opened 15 recovery residences in the State of Texas to house people taking MOUD as part of their recovery. We are collecting quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate outcomes at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational and community levels. At the intrapersonal level, we are assessing changes in behavioural and psychosocial constructs using a longitudinal survey, objectively measuring current substance use with a point-of-interview breathalyser and urinalysis, and examining changes in healthcare utilisation using data obtained from a healthcare information exchange. We are collecting interpersonal data using in-depth individual interviews with residents and staff. We are collecting organisational data using field observation and a cost-effectiveness study, and we are collecting community data using neighbourhood mapping. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The UTHealth institutional review board approved all protocols. We will disseminate study findings via conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and brief community reports.

Indexed as

Opioid-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansOpiate Substitution TreatmentResearch DesignTexasAnalgesics, OpioidMedication AdherenceProtocols & guidelinesSubstance misuse

Identifiers

PMID39496371
PMCPMC11535685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.