Dataset Information

The state of the science in opioid policy research.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Characterize the state of the science in opioid policy research based on a literature review of opioid policy studies.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of studies evaluating the impact of U.S. state-level and federal-level policies on opioid-related outcomes published in 2005-2018. We characterized: 1) state and federal policies evaluated, 2) opioid-related outcomes examined, and 3) study design and analytic methods (summarized overall and by policy category).

Results

In total, 145 studies were reviewed (79 % state-level policies, 21 % federal-level policies) and classified with respect to 8 distinct policy categories and 7 outcome categories. The majority of studies evaluated policies related to prescription opioids (prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), opioid prescribing policies, federal regulation of prescription opioids, pain clinic laws) and considered policy impacts with respect to proximal outcomes (e.g., opioid prescribing behaviors). In total, only 29 (20 % of studies) met each of three key criteria for rigorous design: analysis of longitudinal data with a comparison group design, adjustment for difference between policy-enacting and comparison states, and adjustment for potentially confounding co-occurring policies. These more rigorous studies were predominately published in 2017-2018 and primarily evaluated PDMPs, marijuana laws, treatment-related policies, and overdose prevention policies.

Conclusions

Our results indicated that study design rigor varied notably across policy categories, highlighting the need for broader adoption of rigorous methods in the opioid policy field. More evaluation studies are needed regarding overdose prevention policies and policies related to treatment access. Greater examination of distal outcomes and potential unintended consequences are also warranted.

SUBMITTER: Schuler MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7423757 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn order to elicit the knowledge, experience, and attitudes of individuals involved in disaster response with regard to evidence-based best practices, Evidence Aid and its institutional partners, Georgetown University and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, carried out a Policy Delphi study in 2015-2016.MethodsPurposive and snowball methods were used to select study participants. The Delphi study comprised two rounds of iterative questions, with the questionnaires completed online. In addition, participants at the Evidence Aid conference in November 2016 discussed the findings in focus groups. Excel was used to analyze the quantitative data and Glaser and Strauss (1967) to analyze the qualitative data.ResultsThirty-six participants responded to the first round of the study, 165 responded to the second round, and 30 participated in the focus group discussions. The salient findings include 1) ensuring that all key stakeholders are engaged in planning for and responding to disasters in a collaborative, coordinated manner-including local community members; 2) using, insofar as possible, evidence-based responses; 3) increasing and strengthening research to ensure that such data are available; and 4) addressing ethical, legal and social issues throughout the planning, immediate response, and post-disaster periods.ConclusionsRecent humanitarian disasters, due to natural and man-made hazards or a combination of the two, reinforce the need for more effective, efficient, humane responses at the local, national and international levels. This study has yielded findings that can be used to strengthen planning and response by taking into account, where possible, evidence based on research that has been carried out with the engagement of community members and with support by key stakeholders. The most effective means of facilitating the development and implementation of consistent, coordinated policies and practices might be for the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction to take the lead in engaging key organizations in the required discussions and collaborations.

Project description:IntroductionIn March 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic noncancer pain. In response, in April 2016, the North Carolina Medical Board launched the Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative, an investigative program intended to limit the overprescribing of opioids. This study focuses on the association of the Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative with immediate and sustained changes in opioid prescribing among all patients who received opioid and opioid discontinuation and tapering among patients who received high-dose (>90 milligrams of morphine equivalents), long-term (>90 days) opioid therapy.MethodsControlled and single interrupted time series analysis of opioid prescribing outcomes before and after the implementation of Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative was conducted using deidentified data from the North Carolina Controlled Substances Reporting System from January 2010 through March 2017. Analysis was conducted in 2019-2020.ResultsIn an average study month, 513,717 patients, including patients who received 47,842 high-dose, long-term opioid therapy, received 660,912 opioid prescriptions at 1.3 prescriptions per patient. There was a 0.52% absolute decline (95% CI= -0.87, -0.19) in patients receiving opioid prescriptions in the month after Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation. Abrupt discontinuation, rapid tapering, and gradual tapering of opioids among patients who received high-dose, long-term opioid therapy increased by 1% (95% CI= -0.22, 2.23), 2.2% (95% CI=0.91, 3.47), and 1.3% (95% CI=0.96, 1.57), respectively, in the month after Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation.ConclusionsAlthough Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation was associated with an immediate decline in overall opioid prescribing, it was also associated with an unintended immediate increase in discontinuations and rapid tapering among patients who received high-dose, long-term opioid therapy. Better policy communication and prescriber education regarding opioid tapering best practices may help mitigate unintended consequences of statewide policies.

Project description:BackgroundFunding agencies constitute one essential pillar for policy makers, researchers and health service delivery institutions. Such agencies are increasingly providing support for science implementation. In this paper, we investigate health research funding agencies and how they support the integration of science into policy, and of science into practice, and vice versa.MethodsWe selected six countries: Australia, The Netherlands, France, Canada, England and the United States. For 13 funding agencies, we compared their intentions to support, their actions related to science integration into policy and practice, and the reported benefits of this integration. We did a qualitative content analysis of the reports and information provided on the funding agencies' websites.ResultsMost funding agencies emphasized the importance of science integration into policy and practice in their strategic orientation, and stated how this integration was structured. Their funding activities were embedded in the push, pull, or linkage/exchange knowledge transfer model. However, few program funding efforts were based on all three models. The agencies reported more often on the benefits of integration on practice, rather than on policy. External programs that were funded largely covered science integration into policy and practice at the end of grant stage, while overlooking the initial stages. Finally, external funding actions were more prominent than internally initiated bridging activities and training activities on such integration.ConclusionsThis paper contributes to research on science implementation because it goes beyond the two community model of researchers versus end users, to include funding agencies. Users of knowledge may be end users in health organizations like hospitals; civil servants assigned to decision making positions within funding agencies; civil servants outside of the Ministry of Health, such as the Ministry of the Environment; politicians deciding on health-related legislation; or even university researchers whose work builds on previous research. This heterogeneous sample of users may require different user-specific mechanisms for research initiation, development and dissemination. This paper builds the foundation for further discussion on science implementation from the perspective of funding agencies in the health field. In general, case studies can help in identifying best practices for evidence-informed decision making.