Megan S Schuler1, Sara E Heins2, Rosanna Smart3, Beth Ann Griffin4, David Powell2, Elizabeth A Stuart5, Bryce Pardo4, Sierra Smucker3, Stephen W Patrick6, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula7, Bradley D Stein8. 1. RAND Corporation, 20 Park Plaza #920, Boston, MA, 02216, USA. Electronic address: mschuler@rand.org. 2. RAND Corporation, 4570 Fifth Ave #600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. 3. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, USA. 4. RAND Corporation, 1200 S Hayes Street, Arlington, VA, 22202, USA. 5. Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. 6. Vanderbilt Center for Child Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center 2200 Children's Way, 11111 Doctors' Office Tower, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. 7. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, 635 Downey Way, Verna and Peter Dauterive Hall, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. 8. RAND Corporation, 4570 Fifth Ave #600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Michele Santacatterina; Celia García-Pareja; Rino Bellocco; Anders Sönnerborg; Anna Mia Ekström; Matteo Bottai Journal: Stat Med Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Elizabeth A Stuart; Haiden A Huskamp; Kenneth Duckworth; Jeffrey Simmons; Zirui Song; Michael Chernew; Colleen L Barry Journal: Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol Date: 2014-12-01
Authors: Russell T Shinohara; Anand K Narayan; Kelvin Hong; Hyun S Kim; Josef Coresh; Michael B Streiff; Constantine E Frangakis Journal: Stat Med Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: J Elise Bailey; Phoebe Lindsey Barton; Dennis Lezotte; Steven R Lowenstein; Richard C Dart Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2006-02-28 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Barrot H Lambdin; Corey S Davis; Eliza Wheeler; Stephen Tueller; Alex H Kral Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Noémi Kreif; Richard Grieve; Dominik Hangartner; Alex James Turner; Silviya Nikolova; Matt Sutton Journal: Health Econ Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Megan S Schuler; Beth Ann Griffin; Magdalena Cerdá; Emma E McGinty; Elizabeth A Stuart Journal: Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol Date: 2020-11-12
Authors: Bradley D Stein; Flora Sheng; Erin A Taylor; Andrew W Dick; Mark Sorbero; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Sara E Heins; Christine Buttorff; Courtney Armstrong; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Beth Ann Griffin; Megan S Schuler; Elizabeth A Stuart; Stephen Patrick; Elizabeth McNeer; Rosanna Smart; David Powell; Bradley D Stein; Terry L Schell; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Michael T Phan; Courtney Wong; Daniel M Tomaszewski; Zeev N Kain; Brooke Jenkins; Candice Donaldson; Michelle Fortier; Sun Yang Journal: J Contemp Pharm Prac Date: 2021-03-03