Take-home dosing experiences among persons receiving methadone maintenance treatment during COVID-19

  1. Mary C. Figgatt
  2. Zach Salazar
  3. Elizabeth Day
  4. Louise Vincent
  5. Nabarun Dasgupta

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108276
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.31.20185249: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: NCSU representatives approached persons entering the clinic and administered verbal consent to those indicating interest in survey participation.
    IRB: This study was reviewed and approved by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board.
    RandomizationWe identified all methadone clinics within a 50-mile radius of Greensboro, North Carolina (n=10) and contacted them in a randomized order.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has several limitations. First, due to our study being administered on a single day per clinic, we did not capture true prevalence of take-home doses overall among survey participants. Rather, these results can be used to assess variation in persons receiving take-home doses by clinic and treatment duration. Second, participation in the survey varied by clinic. We believe this was due to some participants being more strongly encouraged to participate by clinic staff and possibly the location of survey administration. For example, surveys were administered while participants waited to be seen by clinic staff at Clinic A, whereas surveys were administered to participants as they entered and exited the clinic at Clinics B and C. Finally, it is possible social desirability bias was present in the self-report of sensitive questions, such as those related to diversion or safe storage procedures. Very low (7%) endorsement of diversion in this survey challenges the loss-prevention orientation of methadone programs. Yet, given the in-clinic milieu of questionnaire deployment and concerns regarding repercussions leading to disruptions in treatment, we cannot preclude self-report bias or that respondents who chose to participate may have self-selected for higher adherence behaviors. Clinic staff were not able to see individual survey results, possibly mitigating the former. However, our survey was administered by a separate organization (NCSU) comprised of persons with lived e...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.31.20185249v2 on medRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.31.20185249v1 on medRxiv