The State of the Science in Opioid Policy Research
Published in: Drug and Alcohol Dependence (June 2020). doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108137
Download Support Files
OPTIC-Vetted Good Samaritan Policy Data
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| zip file | 0.1 MB | The file(s) provided above are ZIP-formatted archives, which most modern systems can natively unpack. If your computer does not unpack the archive when you double-click it, you may need to use a separate decompression program such as UnZip. |
OPTIC Vetted Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) Policy Data
Update 12-21-2020.
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| zip file | 0.3 MB | The file(s) provided above are ZIP-formatted archives, which most modern systems can natively unpack. If your computer does not unpack the archive when you double-click it, you may need to use a separate decompression program such as UnZip. |
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.
This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.
Research conducted by
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.