TY - JOUR
T1 - The state of the science in opioid policy research
AU - Schuler, Megan S.
AU - Heins, Sara E.
AU - Smart, Rosanna
AU - Griffin, Beth Ann
AU - Powell, David
AU - Stuart, Elizabeth A.
AU - Pardo, Bryce
AU - Smucker, Sierra
AU - Patrick, Stephen W.
AU - Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo
AU - Stein, Bradley D.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was funded by awards P50 DA046351 from the National Institute of Drug Abuse. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA, the NIH or the US Government.
Funding Information:
This work was funded by awards P50 DA046351 from the National Institute of Drug Abuse . The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA, the NIH or the US Government.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2020/9/1
Y1 - 2020/9/1
N2 - Objective: Characterize the state of the science in opioid policy research based on a literature review of opioid policy studies. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of studies evaluating the impact of U.S. state-level and federal-level policies on opioid-related outcomes published in 2005−2018. We characterized: 1) state and federal policies evaluated, 2) opioid-related outcomes examined, and 3) study design and analytic methods (summarized overall and by policy category). Results: In total, 145 studies were reviewed (79 % state-level policies, 21 % federal-level policies) and classified with respect to 8 distinct policy categories and 7 outcome categories. The majority of studies evaluated policies related to prescription opioids (prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), opioid prescribing policies, federal regulation of prescription opioids, pain clinic laws) and considered policy impacts with respect to proximal outcomes (e.g., opioid prescribing behaviors). In total, only 29 (20 % of studies) met each of three key criteria for rigorous design: analysis of longitudinal data with a comparison group design, adjustment for difference between policy-enacting and comparison states, and adjustment for potentially confounding co-occurring policies. These more rigorous studies were predominately published in 2017–2018 and primarily evaluated PDMPs, marijuana laws, treatment-related policies, and overdose prevention policies. Conclusions: Our results indicated that study design rigor varied notably across policy categories, highlighting the need for broader adoption of rigorous methods in the opioid policy field. More evaluation studies are needed regarding overdose prevention policies and policies related to treatment access. Greater examination of distal outcomes and potential unintended consequences are also warranted.
AB - Objective: Characterize the state of the science in opioid policy research based on a literature review of opioid policy studies. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of studies evaluating the impact of U.S. state-level and federal-level policies on opioid-related outcomes published in 2005−2018. We characterized: 1) state and federal policies evaluated, 2) opioid-related outcomes examined, and 3) study design and analytic methods (summarized overall and by policy category). Results: In total, 145 studies were reviewed (79 % state-level policies, 21 % federal-level policies) and classified with respect to 8 distinct policy categories and 7 outcome categories. The majority of studies evaluated policies related to prescription opioids (prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), opioid prescribing policies, federal regulation of prescription opioids, pain clinic laws) and considered policy impacts with respect to proximal outcomes (e.g., opioid prescribing behaviors). In total, only 29 (20 % of studies) met each of three key criteria for rigorous design: analysis of longitudinal data with a comparison group design, adjustment for difference between policy-enacting and comparison states, and adjustment for potentially confounding co-occurring policies. These more rigorous studies were predominately published in 2017–2018 and primarily evaluated PDMPs, marijuana laws, treatment-related policies, and overdose prevention policies. Conclusions: Our results indicated that study design rigor varied notably across policy categories, highlighting the need for broader adoption of rigorous methods in the opioid policy field. More evaluation studies are needed regarding overdose prevention policies and policies related to treatment access. Greater examination of distal outcomes and potential unintended consequences are also warranted.
KW - Federal policy
KW - Opioid policy
KW - Review
KW - State policy
KW - Statistical methodology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087523464&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85087523464&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108137
DO - 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108137
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32652376
AN - SCOPUS:85087523464
SN - 0376-8716
VL - 214
JO - Drug and alcohol dependence
JF - Drug and alcohol dependence
M1 - 108137
ER -