Evaluating the Impact of Increased Dispensing of Opioid Agonist Therapy Take-Home Doses on Treatment Retention and Opioid-Related Harm among Opioid Agonist Therapy Recipients: A Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modified opioid agonist therapy (OAT) guidelines that were initially introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic allow prescribers to increase the number of take-home doses to fulfill their need for physical distancing and prevent treatment discontinuation. It is crucial to evaluate the consequence of administering higher take-home doses of OAT on treatment retention and opioid-related harms among OAT recipients to decide whether the new recommendations should be retained post-pandemic. This study used an agent-based model to simulate individuals dispensed daily or weekly OAT (methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone) with a prescription over a six-month treatment period. Within the model simulation, a subset of OAT recipients was deemed eligible for receiving increased take-home doses of OAT at varying points during their treatment time course. Model results demonstrated that the earlier dispensing of increased take-home doses of OAT were effective in achieving a slightly higher treatment retention among OAT recipients. Extended take-home doses also increased opioid-related harms among buprenorphine/naloxone-treated individuals. The model results also illustrated that expanding naloxone availability within OAT patients’ networks could prevent these possible side effects. Therefore, policymakers may need to strike a balance between expanding access to OAT through longer-duration take-home doses and managing the potential risks associated with increased opioid-related harms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".