MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172487295 · doi:10.1097/cxa.0000000000000110

Supporting Persons Who Use Drugs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Review of International Guidelines

2021· review· en· W3172487295 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anees Bahji, Marlon Danilewitz, David Crockford

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Addiction · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health SciencesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialHarm reductionPsychological interventionMedicineAbstinencePandemicGuidelinePsychiatryGovernment (linguistics)Grey literatureOpioid use disorderMEDLINEFamily medicinePolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)OpioidHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background: Persons who use drugs (PWUD) are facing an epidemic during the global COVID-19 pandemic. In recent months, many medical institutions have released guidance documents to inform the management of PWUD as it pertains to COVID-19. Given the flurry of increasing guidance documents, we sought to synthesize the recommendations and identify consensus strategies to support PWUD during the pandemic. Aim: To review existing COVID-19 guidelines for PWUD to synthesize evidence and identify consensus and disagreement areas. Methods: We rapidly reviewed the grey literature (documents produced by organizations, including reports, working papers, government documents, white papers, and clinical guidelines) and published peer-reviewed articles using the World Health Organization guidelines. We organized recommendations by the substance use disorder considered (eg, opioid, stimulant, and alcohol), recommendation type (eg, pharmacotherapy and psychosocial), nature (eg, harm-reduction and abstinence), and score the responsibility (eg, physicians and allied health practitioners). Results: We identified 85 representative articles spanning alcohol, opioid, tobacco, stimulant, and cannabis use disorders. Most reports involved opioid use disorder, generated by Canadian institutions, such as the British Columbia Centre for Substance Use, the Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction, and the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse. An overview of the problem typically prefaced guideline documents (eg, increasing numbers of opioid overdose deaths), followed by a structured approach to management (eg, addressing intoxication and withdrawal) using multiple forms of interventions (eg, harm-reduction, pharmacotherapy, and psychosocial services). Across guidelines, there was consensus regarding the importance of maintaining access to evidence-based treatment through various creative means, such as virtual platforms, take-home medications, and home delivery services. However, there was controversy regarding safe-supply, supervised consumption sites, and alcohol retailers’ designation as “essential services” during the pandemic. Conclusions: With these challenges and insights in mind, the critical issue facing PWUD and their providers during the pandemic is maintaining access to evidence-based treatment and securing food, housing, and income. Along those lines, appropriate care should continue to be patient-centred, collaborative, and mindful of resources. Above all, we must continue to consider a biopsychosocial framework while providing evidence-based care. While these recommendations are helpful, we must apply our clinical judgment individually to weigh the risks and benefits to the patient and the public and destigmatize PWUD. Contexte: Les personnes qui consomment des drogues (PWUD) sont confrontées à une épidémie pendant la pandémie mondiale du COVID-19. Ces derniers mois, de nombreux établissements médicaux ont publié des documents d’orientation pour informer sur la gestion des PWUD en ce qui concerne le COVID-19. Compte tenu du nombre croissant de documents d’orientation, nous avons cherché à synthétiser les recommandations et à identifier des stratégies consensuelles pour soutenir les PWUD pendant la pandémie. Objectif: Examiner les directives du COVID-19 existantes pour les PWUD afin de synthétiser les preuves et d’identifier les domaines de consensus et de désaccord. Méthodes: Nous avons rapidement passé en revue la littérature grise (documents produits par des organisations, y compris des rapports, des documents de travail, des documents gouvernementaux, des livres blancs, des directives cliniques) et publié des articles évalués par des pairs en utilisant les directives de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé. Nous avons organisé les recommandations en fonction du trouble lié à l’usage de substances considéré (p. ex. opioïde, stimulant, alcool), du type de recommandation (p. ex. pharmacothérapie, psychosocial), la nature (p. ex. réduction des méfaits, abstinence) et attribuer la responsabilité (p. ex. médecins, praticiens paramédicaux). Résultats: Nous avons identifié 85 articles représentatifs portant sur les troubles liés à la consommation d’alcool, d’opioïdes, de tabac, de stimulants et de cannabis. La plupart des rapports portaient sur les troubles liés à l’usage d’opioïdes (OUD), générés par des établissements canadiens, comme le British Columbia Centre for Substance Use, le Centre canadien sur les dépendances et l’usage de substances et l’Initiative canadienne de recherche sur l’abus de substances. Un aperçu du problème généralement précédé des documents de lignes directrices (p. ex. nombre croissant de décès par surdose d’opioïdes), suivi d’une approche structurée de la prise en charge (p. ex. traitement de l’intoxication, du sevrage) utilisant de multiples formes d’interventions (p. ex. réduction des méfaits, pharmacothérapie et services psychosociaux). Dans toutes les lignes directrices, il y avait un consensus sur l’importance de maintenir l’accès au traitement fondé sur des données probantes par divers moyens créatifs, tels que des plateformes virtuelles, des médicaments à emporter et des services de livraison à domicile. Cependant, il y a eu une controverse concernant l’approvisionnement sÛr, les sites de consommation supervisée et la désignation des détaillants d’alcool comme «services essentiels» pendant la pandémie. Conclusions: Avec ces défis et ces idées à l’esprit, le problème critique auquel les PWUD et leurs prestataires sont confrontés pendant la pandémie est de maintenir l’accès à un traitement fondé sur des preuves et de garantir la nourriture, le logement et les revenus. Dans ce sens, les soins appropriés doivent continuer à être centrés sur le patient, en collaboration et soucieux des ressources. Par-dessus tout, nous devons continuer à envisager un cadre biopsychosocial tout en fournissant des soins fondés sur des données probantes. Bien que ces recommandations soient utiles, nous devons appliquer notre jugement clinique individuellement pour peser les risques et les avantages pour le patient et le public, en évitant surtout de stigmatiser les PWUD.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0230.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of AddictionSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207