MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200511742 · doi:10.1101/2021.12.13.21267739

Using synthetic controls to estimate the population-level effects of Ontario’s recently implemented overdose prevention sites and consumption and treatment services

2021· preprint· en· W4200511742 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dimitra Panagiotoglou, Jihoon Lim

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine(+)-NaloxonePopulationConsumption (sociology)Emergency medicinePublic healthMedical prescriptionOpioid overdoseEmergency departmentEnvironmental healthDemographyOpioidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Between 2017 and 2020, Ontario implemented overdose prevention sites (OPS) and consumption and treatment services (CTS) in nine of its 34 public health units (PHU). We tested for the effect of booth-hours (spaces within OPS/CTSs for supervised consumption) on opioid-related health service use and mortality rates at the provincial-(aggregate) and PHU-level. Methods We used monthly rates of all opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and deaths between January 2015 and March 2021 as our three outcomes. For each PHU that implemented OPS/CTSs, we created a synthetic control as a weighted combination of unexposed PHUs. Our exposure was the time-varying rate of booth-hours provided. We estimated the population-level effects of the intervention on each outcome per treated/synthetic-control pair using controlled interrupted time series with segmented regression; and tested for the aggregate effect using a multiple baseline approach. We adjusted for time-varying provision of prescription opioids for pain management, opioid agonist treatment (OAT), and naloxone kits; and corrected for seasonality and autocorrelation. All rates were per 100,000 population. For sensitivity analysis, we restricted the post-implementation period to before COVID-19 public health measures were implemented (March 2020). Results Our aggregate analyses found no effect per booth-hour on ED visit (0.00, 95% CI: -0.01, 0.01; p-value=0.6684), hospitalization (0.00, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.00; p-value=0.9710) or deaths (0.00, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.00; p-value=0.2466). However, OAT reduced ED visits (−0.20, 95% CI: -0.35, -0.05; p-value=0.0103) and deaths (−0.04, 95% CI: -0.05, -0.03; p-value=<0.0001). Conversely, prescription opioids for pain management modestly increased deaths (0.0008, 95% CI: 0.0002, 0.0015; p-value=0.0157) per 100,000 population, respectively. Except for a few treated PHU/synthetic control pairs, disaggregate results were congruent with overall findings. Conclusion Booth-hours had no population-level effect on opioid-related overdose ED visit, hospitalization, or death rates.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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 score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→