MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978303973 · doi:10.1111/jrh.12400

Tracking Opioid Prescribing Metrics in Washington State (2012‐2017): Differences by County‐Level Urban‐Rural and Economic Distress Classifications

2019· article· en· W2978303973 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanne M. Sears, Amy T. Edmonds, Deborah Fulton‐Kehoe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rural Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & Health
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthCenters for Disease Control and PreventionWashington State Department of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsRuralityMetropolitan areaMedicineMedical prescriptionRural areaPopulationDistressOpioidSocioeconomic statusEnvironmental healthGeographySocioeconomicsNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: High-risk opioid prescribing is a critical driver of prescription opioid-related morbidity and mortality. This study explored opioid prescribing patterns across urban-rural and economic distress classifications. Secondarily, this study explored the urban-rural distribution of relevant health services, economic factors, and population characteristics. METHODS: County-level opioid prescribing metrics were based on quarterly Washington State Prescription Monitoring Program data (2012-2017). Counties were classified using the 2013 National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties, and Washington State unemployment-based distressed areas. County-level measures from Area Health Resources Files were used to describe the urban-rural continuum. FINDINGS: Persistent economic distress was associated with higher-risk opioid prescribing. The large central metropolitan category had lower-risk opioid prescribing metrics than the other 5 urban-rural categories, which were similar to each other and not ordered by degree of rurality. High-risk prescribing declined over time, without notable trend divergence by either urban-rural or economic distress classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The most striking urban-rural differences in opioid prescribing metrics were between large central metropolitan and all other categories; thus, we recommend caution when collapsing urban-rural categories for analysis. Further research is needed regarding geographic and economic patterning of opioid prescribing practices, as well as the dissemination of guidelines and best practices across the urban-rural continuum. Finally, the multiple intertwined burdens faced by rural communities-higher-risk prescribing practices, higher opioid morbidity and mortality rates, and fewer resources for primary care, mental health care, alternative pain treatment, and opioid use disorder treatment-must be addressed as an urgent public health priority.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rural HealthSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207