The state of the science in opioid policy research

• Published in: Drug and alcohol dependence 2020-09, Vol.214, p.108137-108137, Article 108137
• Main Authors: Schuler, Megan S., Heins, Sara E., Smart, Rosanna, Griffin, Beth Ann, Powell, David, Stuart, Elizabeth A., Pardo, Bryce, Smucker, Sierra, Patrick, Stephen W., Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, Stein, Bradley D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adjustment; Analgesics, Opioid; Cannabis; Categories; Comorbidity; Design; Design analysis; Drug Overdose - drug therapy; Evaluation; Federal policies; Federal policy; Federal regulation; Female; Health Policy; Humans; Legislation; Literature reviews; Marijuana; Narcotics; Opioid policy; Opioids; Overdose; Pain; Pain Clinics; Policies; Policy; Policy analysis; Policy research; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - legislation & jurisprudence; Prescribing; Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs; Prescription drugs; Prescriptions; Prevention; Review; State policy; States; Statistical methodology; Systematic review; Therapeutic drug monitoring
• ISSN: 0376-8716; 1879-0046
• DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108137

•Conducted a scoping review of U.S. opioid policy evaluation studies from 2005–2018.•145 studies were reviewed: 21 % examined federal policies, 79 % state policies.•Majority of studies evaluated policies related to prescription opioids.•Our results indicated that study design rigor varied notably across policy categories.•Greater adoption of more rigorous study designs and statistical methods is warranted. Characterize the state of the science in opioid policy research based on a literature review of opioid policy studies. 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). 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. 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.