What are the impacts when primary care providers diminish stigma for patients with opioid use disorder in British Columbia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stigma is a complex phenomenon with a myriad of detrimental health and social impacts that are not fully studied or understood. Persistent stigma exists towards individuals who have opioid use disorder (OUD) in British Columbia. OUD is a chronic, relapsing, clinical condition that has been identified as one of the most challenging substance use disorders. For those affected, they must also endure the consequences of stigma that promote barriers to health care, health and social inequalities, diminished quality of life as well as increased morbidity and mortality. The current unremitting opioid overdose crisis in British Columbia further emphasizes the importance of eradicating stigma towards individuals who use opioids and/or suffer from OUD, as untreated OUD is fueling this multifaceted public health emergency. For these reasons, an integrative literature review has been conducted to identify how primary care providers in British Columbia can address the intersecting stigmas for individuals suffering OUD. The results are discussed within the context of primary health care in British Columbia. Whittemore and Knafl’s approach to the integrative literature review was utilized in this study to review eleven pertinent articles. The findings suggest that stigma occurs on varying levels for individuals with OUD that serve to reinforce each other and manifest as discrimination, mistrust, social distancing, minimized advocacy, unequal access to health care and suboptimal health care. Further, the findings indicated that the role of primary care providers may be instrumental in eradicating stigma in a timely manner. Recommendations for primary care providers to dismantle the stigma associated with OUD are discussed, and specific strategies for the primary care setting are presented.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".