MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404769562 · doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2024.100575

Do we need urine drug screens in opioid addiction treatment: An observational study on self-report versus urine drug screens

2024· article· en· W4404769562 on OpenAlexafffund
Alannah McEvoy, Myanca Rodrigues, Brittany B. Dennis, Jacqueline Hudson, David C. Marsh, Andrew Worster, Lehana Thabane, M. Constantine Samaan

Bibliographic record

VenueAddictive Behaviors Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaLaurentian UniversityBritish Columbia Centre on Substance UseMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsObservational studyUrineDrugAddictionOpioidMedicineOpioid addictionPharmacologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The substance use crisis continues to progress. Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) are prescribed to reduce opioid use and related harms; however, many individuals continue to use substances while on treatment. The objective of this study was to describe the temporal and demographic trends of the agreement between self-reported and urine tested substances. Methods: The current study is a retrospective secondary analysis of three phases of a prospective cohort study (Pilot 2011, Genetics of opioid addiction (GENOA) 2013-2017, and Pharmacogenetics of opioid substitution treatment (POST)) 2018-2022) spanning 2011-2022. We compared the self-reported substance use data for opioids, benzodiazepines, amphetamine/methamphetamine (AMP/MET), and cocaine with urine drug results. We compared the positive predictive value (PPV), false omission rate (FOR), sensitivity, and specificity between (i) different drugs; (ii) by sex, and (iii) age group at enrollment in each phase of the study using self-reported substance use at baseline and retrospective electronic health record data on urine drug screenings collected over the same time period. Results: Overall, the average PPV and FOR for any drug across all phases was 80.7 % and 37.9 %, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity were highest for cocaine and lowest for benzodiazepines. We found no specific trend by sex. Lastly, we found a higher sensitivity for opioids and AMP/MET in those under 25 years of age compared to other age groups. PPV increased over time for benzodiazepines, AMP/MET and cocaine and FOR was higher during the pilot and POST phases than the GENOA phase. Conclusion: Our study highlights the unique challenges associated with ascertaining substance use behaviour for individuals receiving MOUD, indicating many patients will accurately report substance use while others do not. It is therefore important to consider the context of the patient, and the type of the co-substance used to select patient-centred testing as indicated. Therefore, the answer to the question of do we need urine drug screen is yes in some cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictive Behaviors ReportsSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207