Compliance and Satisfaction With a Protocol for Identifying Novel Targets to Support Postpartum Opioid Use Disorder Recovery: Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) often yields high adherence during pregnancy, the risk of returning to opioid misuse during postpartum is high. There are currently no relapse prevention programs tailored to this unique time period. Using a prospective cohort study, we seek to preliminarily identify hormones or infant caregiving approaches as novel predictors of postpartum opioid misuse. Objective: As a first step in dissemination of results, this report contains a detailed account of the protocol, as well as recruitment, retention, compliance, and participant satisfaction. Methods: Participants were individuals with OUD (OUD+) and those without (OUD-) who were followed from late pregnancy (≥36 gestational wk) to postpartum month 5. From childbirth to postpartum week 12, participants completed daily surveys (capturing use, craving, interactions with infant) and weekly face-to-face visits (including collection of biological samples for hormone assays). Follow-up visits using the same procedures occurred at postpartum month 4 and 5. Results: Most participants (50 OUD+, 20 OUD-) notified the study staff of childbirth (n=63, 93%), completed at least 1 postpartum clinic visit (n=62, 87%), and completed follow-up (n=51, 73%). Compliance with procedures ranged from 81% for weekly surveys to 63% for weekly dried blood spots, generally with lower compliance among OUD+ and at later time points. Among a subgroup of participants (n=31), regardless of group and time point, reported high study satisfaction (eg, on a scale where 0 is "not at all" and 3 is "extremely," on average, participants reported 2.9±0.4 for their willingness to complete this study again at week 12 postpartum). Conclusions: This prospective cohort study was well tolerated despite the challenging postpartum period. Data collected will provide ample opportunities to identify novel risk or protective factors to inform the development of new relapse prevention intervention programs specific to the needs of those with OUD during early postpartum.
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 | 0.087 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".