Neonatal abstinence syndrome in countries with no to low medical opioid consumption: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the current state of evidence on the care of neonates with neonatal abstinence syndrome in countries with low to virtually no medical opioid analgesic consumption. BACKGROUND: While access to opioids for medical use improves globally, misuse grows as a health concern. One unintended consequence has been an increase in the incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome. Because most evidence is generated in countries with adequate opioid analgesic consumption, a picture of evidence in lower opioid-consuming countries is not available. DESIGN: A scoping review methodology was employed and augmented with principles of international development literature review. Electronic database searches (PubMed and CINAHL) located 1106 articles. Google was employed to access an additional 17 non-indexed articles. From the total of 1123 articles located, 27 articles from 15 countries were included. RESULTS: Minimal evidence was produced in low to virtually no medical opioid-consuming countries. Sources were primarily review articles, descriptive, comparative or case reports. Seventy-one per cent of the articles identified at least one specific clinical practice related to the care of infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: As opioid analgesic use increases globally, a subsequent increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome is likely. It will be beneficial for providers and policymakers to be proactive in considering implications for neonatal and maternal populations and collaborate with providers who have been gaining experience in this area. A number of these countries are heroin-growing regions and already experiencing issues. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE AND HEALTH POLICY: Policymakers may use these findings to support data collection and reporting, context and resource relevant guideline development, and advocacy for inclusion of the maternal-infant population in global opioid research priority setting. International collaboration for establishing gender and culturally appropriate practices globally is critical.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".