Substance of choice, impact of heroin or opium on treatment retention in a multicentre randomised controlled trial in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the Middle East and Asia, illicit opioid use exists across a spectrum between heroin and opium. The impact of primary opioid of choice on opioid agonist treatment retention has not been well evaluated previously, especially for opium tincture, an increasingly popular form of opioid agonist treatment in Iran. This study investigates the relationship between primary opioid of choice, namely heroin or opium, and retention in opium tincture and methadone treatment. METHODS: Participants with opioid use disorder (n = 204) were randomised to receive opium tincture or methadone. All participants were categorised as mainly using opium or heroin. Bivariate analyses between treatment retention and primary opioid of choice (P < 0.05) and logistic regression were conducted. RESULTS: Among the 191 participants included in this analysis, heroin was the primary substance of choice for 135 participants (70.7%) and opium for 56 (29.3%). Bivariate analysis showed that the opium group was more likely to be satisfied with family situation, employed and retained in treatment than the heroin group while less likely to experience incarceration and use multiple substances. When adjusting for covariates, primary opioid of choice was not significantly associated with retention in either methadone or opium tincture treatment arm. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Positive factors, such as employment, housing and family support, seem to collectively explain the higher retention in treatment among those who primarily use opium compared to those who use heroin. To optimise retention in opioid agonist treatment, biopsychosocial care models should be further evaluated to improve psychosocial functioning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".