Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41543853›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Public Views About Opioid Overdose and People With Opioid Use Disorder.

Emma E McGinty, Sarah Gutkind, Jeff Niederdeppe, Erika Franklin Fowler, Colleen L Barry

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Error in Methods.JAMA network open · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Emma E McGintyDivision of Health Policy & Economics, Cornell Health Policy Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Sarah GutkindDivision of Health Policy & Economics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Jeff NiederdeppeDepartment of Communication, Cornell Health Policy Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Erika Franklin FowlerDepartment of Government, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut.
Colleen L BarryJeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy, Cornell Health Policy Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Opioid overdoses in the US began to decline in 2024, concurrent with the transition to a new federal administration that will shape how the government prioritizes and responds to opioid overdose in coming years. Understanding US residents' current views on opioid overdose and addiction can inform future efforts to address these issues. Objective: To examine how US adults view opioid overdose and people with opioid addiction in 2025, and how views vary by conservative, moderate, or liberal ideology. Design, Setting, and Participants: This web-based survey of a national sample of adults who identified their race and ethnicity as non-Hispanic or Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic White was fielded April 7 to 28, 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures: Respondents rated their perceptions of the seriousness of opioid overdose deaths in the US; the degree to which they viewed people who use opioids, their family members, pharmaceutical companies, governments (federal, state, and local), or nonprofits as responsible for reducing overdose deaths; and social distance attitudes (willingness to have a person with opioid addiction as a neighbor or marry into their family). Results: Among the 1552 survey respondents (939 female [60.5%]; 523 aged 30-44 years [33.7%]; 756 non-Hispanic or Hispanic Black [48.7%]; 796 non-Hispanic White [51.3%]), 448 (28.9%) politically identified as conservatives, 615 (39.6%) as moderates, and 489 (31.5%) as liberals. Overall, 88.2% (95% CI, 86.0%-90.1%) of adults viewed opioid overdose deaths as serious, as did 83.4% (95% CI, 78.8%-87.1%) of conservatives, 88.7% (95% CI, 85.2%-91.5%) of moderates, and 93.4% (95% CI, 90.4%-95.6%) of liberals. Respondents viewed people who use opioids (81.0%; 95% CI, 78.4%-83.4%) and pharmaceutical companies (72.7%; 95% CI, 69.7%-75.4%) as most responsible for reducing overdose deaths. More liberals (83.4%; 95% CI, 78.6%-87.3%) identified pharmaceutical companies as responsible than people who use opioids (69.6%; 95% CI, 64.0%-74.3%). Regarding social distance, 38.3% (95% CI, 35.3%-41.5%) of respondents were unwilling to have a person with opioid addiction as a neighbor and 58.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-61.5%) were unwilling to have a person with opioid addiction marry into their family. Desire for social distance was greater among conservatives (neighbor: 52.0%; 95% CI, 46.5%-57.4%; marry: 71.0%; 95% CI, 65.9%-75.7%) vs moderates (neighbor: 34.0%; 95% CI, 29.2%-39.2%; marry: 54.4%; 95% CI, 49.2%-59.5%) or liberals (neighbor: 27.0%; 95% CI, 22.3%-32.4%; marry: 48.0%; 95% CI, 42.3%-53.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this 2025 survey study, US adults viewed opioid overdose as a serious problem. Different views on the degree to which individuals who use opioids, pharmaceutical companies, and governments are responsible for reducing overdose suggest that preferences for future actions to address overdose may vary among conservatives, moderates, and liberals.

Indexed as

Drug OverdoseOpiate OverdoseOpioid-Related DisordersPublic OpinionAdultAnalgesics, OpioidFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung AdultAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID41543853
PMCPMC12811807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.