Facilitators of and barriers to buprenorphine initiation in the emergency department: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buprenorphine initiation in the Emergency Department (ED) has been hailed as an evidence-based strategy to mitigate the opioid overdose crisis, but its implementation has been limited. This scoping review synthesizes barriers and facilitators to buprenorphine initiation in the ED, and uses the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a critical lens to analyze the literature. Results demonstrate an immense effort across the U.S. and Canada to implement ED-initiated buprenorphine. Facilitators include multidisciplinary addiction teams and co-located, low-barrier, harm reduction-informed services to support transitions. Barriers include a failure to address structural stigma, client complexity, and an increasingly toxic drug supply. The literature also misses the opportunity to include the perspectives of service users, health administrators, and learners. Increased coordination of implementation efforts, and a shift to equitable and inclusive opioid agonist therapy initiation pathways are needed across the U.S. and Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".