Users' Acceptability and Perceived Efficacy of mHealth for Opioid Use Disorder: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The opioid crisis continues to pose significant challenges to global public health, necessitating the development of novel interventions to support individuals in managing their substance use and preventing overdose-related deaths. Mobile health (mHealth), as a promising platform for addressing opioid use disorder, requires a comprehensive understanding of user perspectives to minimize barriers to care and optimize the benefits of mHealth interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize qualitative insights into opioid users' acceptability and perceived efficacy of mHealth and wearable technologies for opioid use disorder. METHODS: A scoping review of PubMed (MEDLINE) and Google Scholar databases was conducted to identify research on opioid user perspectives concerning mHealth-assisted interventions, including wearable sensors, SMS text messaging, and app-based technology. RESULTS: Overall, users demonstrate a high willingness to engage with mHealth interventions to prevent overdose-related deaths and manage opioid use. Users perceive mHealth as an opportunity to access care and desire the involvement of trusted health care professionals in these technologies. User comfort with wearing opioid sensors emerged as a significant factor. Personally tailored content, social support, and encouragement are preferred by users. Privacy concerns and limited access to technology pose barriers to care. CONCLUSIONS: To maximize benefits and minimize risks for users, it is crucial to implement robust privacy measures, provide comprehensive user training, integrate behavior change techniques, offer professional and peer support, deliver tailored messages, incorporate behavior change theories, assess readiness for change, design stigma-reducing apps, use visual elements, and conduct user-focused research for effective opioid management in mHealth interventions. mHealth demonstrates considerable potential as a tool for addressing opioid use disorder and preventing overdose-related deaths, given the high acceptability and perceived benefits reported by users.
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 | 0.018 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".