Increases in the availability of prescribed opioids in a Canadian setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The nonmedical use of prescribed opioids (POs) has increased across North America over the past decade. Our objective was to identify changes in the availability of POs and other illicit drugs among drug users in a Canadian setting. Methods Information on the availability of illicit drugs was collected in standardized interviews from a large observational research program involving illicit drug users in Vancouver, British Columbia from 2006–2010. The primary outcome was the perceived availability of a set of six POs (aspirin/oxycodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, morphine, acetaminophen/codeine and methadone) among individuals reporting ever using POs. Availability was measured in three levels: not available, delayed availability (available ≥10min.), and immediate availability (available <10min.). Multivariate ordinal logistic regression models were executed to estimate the trend in PO availability, controlling for individual characteristics hypothesized to influence availability. Results 1,871 individuals were followed during the study period (2006–2010), including 583(31.2%) women. The availability of POs increased over time, regardless of changes in the characteristics of cohort entrants. These increases were observed while the availability of traditional drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin and cocaine) remained constant. The adjusted odds of delayed availability vs. unavailability were between 34% (hydromorphone) and 71% (acetaminophen/codeine) greater in each calendar year. Discussion The availability of POs among drug users in a Canadian setting increased markedly over a relatively short timeframe, despite persistent and high availability of heroin and cocaine. Further study is required to determine the context of use of POs, associated harms, as well as policy responses to increasing availability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".