↓ Skip to main content

Men’s and women’s response to treatment and perceptions of outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of injectable opioid assisted treatment for severe opioid use disorder

Overview of attention for article published in Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Men’s and women’s response to treatment and perceptions of outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of injectable opioid assisted treatment for severe opioid use disorder
Published in
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13011-017-0110-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather Palis, Kirsten Marchand, Daphne Guh, Suzanne Brissette, Kurt Lock, Scott MacDonald, Scott Harrison, Aslam H. Anis, Michael Krausz, David C. Marsh, Martin T. Schechter, Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes

Abstract

To test whether there are gender differences in treatment outcomes among patients receiving injectable opioids for the treatment of long-term opioid-dependence. The study additionally explores whether men and women have different perceptions of treatment effectiveness. This study is a secondary analysis from SALOME, a double-blind, phase III, randomized controlled trial testing the non-inferiorirty of injectable hydromorphone to injectable diacetylmorphine among 202 long-term street opioid injectors in Vancouver (Canada). Given this was a secondary analysis, no a priori power calaculation was conducted. Differences in baseline characteristics and six-month treatment outcomes (illicit heroin use, opioid use, crack cocaine use, non-legal activities, physical and psychological health scores, urine positive for street heroin markers, and retention) were analysed by gender using fitted models. Responses to an open ended question on reasons for treatment effectiveness were explored with a thematic analysis. Men and women differed significantly on a number of characteristics at baseline. For example, women were significantly younger, presented to treatment with significantly higher rates of prior month sex work (31.5% vs. 0%), and used significantly more crack cocaine (14.71 vs. 8.38 days). After six-months of treatment there were no significant differences in treatment outcomes by gender, after adjusting for baseline values. For both men and women, improved health and quality of life were the most common reasons provided for treatment effectiveness, however women were more specific in the types of health improvements. Despite presenting to treatment with vulnerabilities not faced to the same extent by men, at six-months women did not differ significantly from men in tested trial efficacy outcomes. While the primary outcome in the trial was the reduction of illicit opioid use, in the open-ended responses both men and women focused their comments on improvement in health and quality of life as reasons for treatment effectiveness. The supervised model of care with injectable medications provides a particularly suitable framework for providing care to opioid-dependent men and women not attracted or retained by other treatments. The absence of statistical differences reported in this secondary analysis may be due to lack of adequate statistical power to detect meaningful effects. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01447212) Registered: October 4, 2011 at the following link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01447212 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 19%
Student > Master 11 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 40 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Psychology 12 10%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 39 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2021.
All research outputs
#4,073,735
of 24,579,850 outputs
Outputs from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#233
of 712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,926
of 317,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,579,850 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.