Trends in Opioid Medication Adherence During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent pandemic had the potential to worsen the opioid crisis through multiple effects on patients' lives, such as the disruption of care. In particular, good levels of adherence with respect to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), recognized as being important for positive outcomes, may be disrupted. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether patients on MOUD experienced a drop in medication adherence during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Medicaid claims data from 6 US states from 2018 until the start of 2021. We compared medication adherence for people on MOUD before and after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Our main measure was the proportion of days covered (PDC), a score that measures patients' adherence to their MOUD. We carried out a breakpoint analysis on PDC, followed by a patient-level beta regression analysis with PDC as the dependent variable while controlling for a set of covariates. RESULTS: A total of 79,991 PDC scores were calculated for 37,604 patients (age: mean 37.6, SD 9.8 years; sex: n=17,825, 47.4% female) between 2018 and 2021. The coefficient for the effect of COVID-19 on PDC score was -0.076 and was statistically significant (odds ratio 0.925, 95% CI 0.90-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was negatively associated with patients' adherence to their medication, which had declined since the beginning of the pandemic.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".