Patient Satisfaction With Standard Methadone and Flexible Buprenorphine/Naloxone Models of Care: Results From a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient satisfaction is a critical measure of quality of care across health disciplines because it may affect clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine longitudinal patient satisfaction in individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) randomized to receive either standard methadone or flexible buprenorphine/naloxone models of care, its predictors, and association with dropout/illicit drug use. METHODS: This study assessed patient satisfaction, using the 8-item version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ), as a secondary outcome of a large phase IV pragmatic randomized controlled trial (OPTIMA). The effectiveness of standard methadone model of care was compared with flexible take-home buprenorphine/naloxone dispensation model of care in patients with prescription-type OUD. Of 272 participants recruited and followed up for 24 weeks, 183 were eligible for this study. RESULTS: Throughout the study, patients were "satisfied" with their treatment. The average CSQ score was not significantly different between weeks 4, 12, and 24 in the total sample (χ 2 = 0.35; P = 0.84). There was no significant difference in CSQ based on treatment assignment (methadone vs flexible buprenorphine/naloxone) either overall ( z = 0.87; P = 0.38) or over time (χ 2 = 0.65; P = 0.72). High levels of depression at baseline and decreased depressive symptoms over the follow-up period predicted positive changes in patient satisfaction ( P = 0.03 and P = <0.01, respectively). Satisfaction was significantly associated with treatment retention but not illicit drug use. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that patients with OUD on either standard methadone or flexible buprenorphine were generally satisfied with their treatment, with no difference in patient satisfaction based on treatment allocation. Given the ongoing opioid crisis, strategies to improve patient satisfaction should be further explored.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".