ArticleBMJ open2025
Quality indicators for substance use disorder care: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSubstance use disorders (SUDs) are a major public health challenge, affecting millions of individuals globally and contributing to substantial morbidity and mortality. Individuals with SUDs face numerous barriers to accessing high-quality healthcare, leaving vulnerable populations susceptible to the undertreatment of SUDs. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines and effective interventions for SUD, there is a notable gap in the implementation and adherence to evidence-based care.Measuring the quality of care (QoC) is a critical initial step toward enhancing the treatment and services provided to individuals with SUDs. While quality indicators (QIs) for SUD care have been established in various regions, including the USA, Canada and the UK, the application of QIs for the routine measurement of QoC for SUDs is not common. Identifying and characterising the areas of low QoC in SUD management can highlight critical targets for quality improvement initiatives. However, QoC measurement in SUD care is complex, with potentially redundant indicators derived from different sources, each with its own definitions, criteria and data requirements. This scoping review aims to explore the range of QIs that are currently available to assess the QoC for individuals with SUDs.
methodsThe review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley framework and incorporate methods proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and Levac PATIENTS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Patients and the public will not be directly involved in the design or conduct of this scoping review. However, stakeholder consultation, including individuals with lived experience of SUDs, will be incorporated during the Delphi process to prioritise identified QIs for SUD care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not necessary for stages 1-4 of this scoping review as it will not involve primary data collection. Ethics approval will be obtained from the University of Calgary Health Research Ethics Board prior to the commencement of stakeholder consultation (Stage 5) in January 2025. This scoping review was preregistered on the Open Science Framework. The results of this scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Findings will be shared with local clinicians through presentations and with the research and clinical community at relevant conferences. This study represents a necessary first step towards establishing routine QoC measurement for SUDs. Results will be used in a stakeholder consensus exercise aimed at identifying key QIs for SUD care in Alberta, Canada, that will guide the future development of continuous QoC measurement using population-based data.
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.