A retrospective analysis of treatment and retention outcomes of pregnant and/or parenting women with opioid use disorder
Abstract
Aim To determine factors associated with positive outcomes of buprenorphine maintenance treatment for opioid use disorder among pregnant women and women with children under the age of five years.Methods This retrospective, de-identified electronic health record review of a cohort of 108 female patients at a suburban primary care outpatient clinic followed patients for one year of treatment at the clinic. Positive outcomes were defined as 1) treatment retention and 2) urine toxicology at 12 months free of all substances other than buprenorphine. This study also evaluated a variety of potential correlates of treatment retention and toxicology, including patient demographics, medical and social history, and clinical factors (i.e., participation in a women's group and assigned treatment provider).Results Patient retention was 73.2% at 12 months. Compared to those retained in treatment, patients not retained were more likely to have received past treatment for a psychiatric illness (65.4% vs. 38.2%; p < 0.02) or have prior criminal history of a misdemeanor conviction (56.0% vs. 27.9%; p < 0.02). There was a significant association between time in treatment and reduction in opiate use (p < 0.01).Conclusions In this population, certain baseline characteristics were predictive of failure to be retained in treatment. As such, specific patients may need more intensive treatment. These findings have important public health and child welfare implications and may offer insight for providers to tailor treatment and refer for comprehensive services.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Retention in opioid use disorder treatment is low and decreases most precipitously during the early postpartum period.
“Even when treatment is initiated, retention in treatment is low, decreasing most precipitously during the early postpartum period [2–6].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 16
- Authors
- Lopian, K. M., Chebolu, E., Kulak, J. A., Kahn, L. S., & Blondell, R. D.
- Affiliations
- University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
- Buffalo State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lopian, Kailey M.
- Chebolu, Esha
- Kulak, Jessica A.
- Kahn, Linda S.
- Blondell, Richard D.
- Venue
- Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 97
- Pages
- 1-6
- ISSN
- 0740-5472 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2900428488
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 2.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- SUNY
- Health Resources and Services Administration (T32HP30035)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Keywords
- opioid use disorder, pregnant women, parenting women, buprenorphine maintenance treatment, treatment retention, urine toxicology, predictors of treatment dropout, psychiatric comorbidity, criminal history, primary care, child welfare
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Buprenorphine, Female, Humans, Mothers, Opioid-Related Disorders, Narcotics, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Compliance, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Retrospective Studies, Parenting, Young Adult, Opiate Substitution Treatment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review