SynthesisBMJ mental health2025
Safer opioid supply clients' values and preferences: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research.
Synthesis in BMJ mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safer supply deprescribing during a toxic drug poisoning crisis in Vancouver, Canada.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2026Article
- Safe Supply at Insite, North America's First Supervised Consumption Site: A Case Report of Reduced Harms From the Toxic Drug Supply in a Client Prescribed Powdered Fentanyl Alternative.Drug and alcohol review · 2026Article
- Harm reduction vending machines as safer supply-supporting infrastructure.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
questionWhat are the values and preferences of safer opioid supply clients? STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies on safer opioid supply client experiences published between January 2016 and August 2024. Searches were conducted across seven databases-MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EBM Reviews, Web of Science and Scopus-and supplemented with searches in Google Scholar and relevant repositories. Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data analysis was guided by Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis approach and confidence in review findings was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022384447).
findingsOur thematic synthesis included 19 peer-reviewed original research articles involving 459 study participants from British Columbia and Ontario, of whom 60.1% were men and 36.1% were women. Our findings centred on four cross-cutting analytic themes: (1) client-relevant goals and outcomes (withdrawal management, pain management, socioeconomic improvements), (2) the right medications to optimise client-relevant outcomes (multiple medication and formulation options, flexible dosage), (3) supportive, client-centred care environment (safe, welcoming and non-judgmental spaces, coordinating access to health and social support services, shared decision-making) and (4) complex adaptive systems approach to clinical policies (understanding the complexity of clients' living circumstances, flexible dose schedules, non-punitive policies). Confidence in findings ranged from moderate to high.
conclusionsSafer opioid supply's success depends on providing individualised opioid medications, fostering person-centred care and implementing adaptive clinical policies. A supportive and flexible model enhances client satisfaction, sustains programme participation and optimises client-relevant outcomes.
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.