ArticleBMJ open2025
Qualitative evidence of service user experiences and perspectives on long-acting injectable buprenorphine for opioid treatment: protocol for a scoping review.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is substantial literature on opioid pharmacotherapies from a service user perspective, mostly focused on methadone and buprenorphine. However, as a relatively new formulation, much less is known about user experiences and views of Long-Acting Injectable Buprenorphine (LAIB). To date, no published reviews have qualitatively described LAIB service user experience. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and describe the peer-reviewed qualitative studies examining the service user experience of LAIB. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the methodology described by Arksey and O'Malley, further adapted by Levac ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review undertakes secondary analysis of data in the public domains only and thus does not require ethics approval given no participants are directly involved. The results of the review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant academic and community conferences, and discussed and disseminated to/with community organisations, service users and policy-makers. DATA STATEMENT: Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, visit: Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XMHKN.
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.