MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386030086 · doi:10.2196/51825

Determining the Impact of Opioid Policy on Substance Use and Mental Health–Related Harms: Protocol for a Data Linkage Study

2023· article· en· W4386030086 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ting Xia, Louisa Picco, Samanta Lalic, Rachelle Buchbinder, J. Simon Bell, Nadine E. Andrew, Dan I. Lubman, Christopher Pearce, Suzanne Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineMental healthMedical prescriptionPopulationOpioidEmergency departmentPsychiatryAnxietyPharmaceutical Benefits SchemeMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Increasing harms related to prescription opioids over the past decade have led to the introduction of a range of key national and state policy initiatives across Australia. These include introducing a mandatory real-time prescription drug-monitoring program in the state of Victoria from April 2020 and a series of changes to subsidies for opioids on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme from June 2020. Together, these changes aim to influence opioid supply and reduce harms related to prescription opioids, yet few studies have specifically explored how these policies have influenced opioid prescribing and related harms in Australia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the impact of a range of opioid-related policies on hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) presentations in Victoria, Australia. In particular, the study aims to understand the effect of various opioid policies and opioid-prescribing changes on (1) the number and rates of ED presentations and hospital admissions attributed to substance use (ie, opioid and nonopioid related) or mental ill-health (eg, suicide, self-harm, anxiety, and depression), (2) the association between differing opioid dose trajectories and the likelihood of ED presentations and hospital admissions related to substance use and mental ill-health, and (3) whether changes in an individual's opioid prescribing change the risk related to ED presentations and hospital admissions related to substance use and mental ill-health. METHODS: We will conduct a population-level linked data study. General practice health records obtained from the Population Level Analysis and Reporting platform are linked with person-level data from 3 large hospital networks in Victoria, Australia. Interrupted time series analysis will be used to examine the impact of opioid policies on a range of harms, including the rates of presentations related to substance use (opioid and nonopioid) and mental ill-health among the primary care cohort. Group-based trajectory modeling and a case-crossover design will be used to further explore the impact of changes in opioid dosage and other covariates on opioid and nonopioid poisonings and mental ill-health-related presentations at the patient level. RESULTS: Given that this paper serves as a protocol, there are currently no results available. The deidentified primary health data were sourced from electronic medical records of approximately 4,717,000 patients from 542 consenting general practices over a 6-year period (2017-2022). The submission of results for publication is planned for early 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This study will add to the limited evidence base to help understand the impact of opioid policies in Australia, including whether intended or unintended outcomes are occurring as a result. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU PAS Register EUPAS104005; https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=104006. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51825.

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)0.114
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1140.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.012

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 head0.507
GPT teacher head0.641
Teacher spread0.134 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→