The Association Between Self-Reported Anxiety and Retention in Opioid Agonist Therapy: Findings From a Canadian Pragmatic Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundPrescription-type opioid use disorder (POUD) is often accompanied by comorbid anxiety, yet the impact of anxiety on retention in opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is unclear. Therefore, this study investigated whether baseline anxiety severity affects retention in OAT and whether this effect differs by OAT type (methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) vs. buprenorphine/naloxone (BNX)).MethodsThis secondary analysis used data from a pan-Canadian randomized trial comparing flexible take-home dosing BNX and standard supervised MMT for 24 weeks. The study included 268 adults with POUD. Baseline anxiety was assessed using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), with BAI ≥ 16 indicating moderate-to-severe anxiety. The primary outcomes were retention in assigned and any OAT at week 24. In addition, the impact of anxiety severity on retention was examined, and assigned OAT was considered an effect modifier.ResultsOf the participants, 176 (65%) reported moderate-to-severe baseline anxiety. In adjusted analyses, there was no significant difference in retention between those with BAI ≥ 16 and those with BAI < 16 assigned (29% vs. 28%; odds ratio (OR) = 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.94–4.40; P = 0.07) or any OAT (35% vs. 34%; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 0.77–3.21; P = 0.21). In addition, there was no significant effect modification by OAT type for retention in assigned (P = 0.41) or any OAT (P = 0.71). In adjusted analyses, greater retention in treatment was associated with BNX (vs. MMT), male gender identity (vs. female, transgender, or other), enrolment in the Quebec study site (vs. other sites), and absence of a positive urine drug screen for stimulants at baseline.ConclusionsBaseline anxiety severity did not significantly impact retention in OAT for adults with POUD, and there was no significant effect modification by OAT type. However, the overall retention rates were low, highlighting the need to develop new strategies to minimize the risk of attrition from treatment.Clinical Trial RegistrationThis study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03033732).
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".