Development of a Cascade of Care for responding to the opioid epidemic.
Open accessAbstract
Amid worsening opioid overdose death rates, the nation continues to face a persistent addiction treatment gap limiting access to quality care for opioid use disorder (OUD). Three FDA-approved medications (methadone, buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone) have high quality evidence demonstrating reductions in drug use and overdose events, but most individuals with OUD do not receive them. The development of a unified public health framework, such as a Cascade of Care, could improve system level practice and treatment outcomes. In response to feedback from many stakeholders over the past year, we have expanded upon the OUD treatment cascade, first published in 2017, with additional attention to prevention stages and both individual-level and population-based services to better inform efforts at the state and federal level. The proposed cascade framework has attracted considerable interest from federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) along with policy-makers nationwide. We have reviewed recent literature and evidence-based interventions related to prevention, identification, and treatment of individuals with OUD and modeled updated figures from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Many currently employed interventions (prescriber guidelines, prescription monitoring programs, naloxone rescue) address prevention of OUD or downstream complications but not treatment of the underlying disorder itself. An OUD Cascade of Care framework could help structure local and national efforts to combat the opioid epidemic by identifying key targets, interventions, and quality indicators across populations and settings to achieve these ends. Improved data collection and reporting methodology will be imperative.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Many eligible individuals are not receiving MOUD due in part to the limited number of prescribers, financial accessibility, restrictions on methadone care, and stigma.
“Although MOUD are highly effective, many eligible individuals are not receiving them due in part to the limited number of prescribers, financial accessibility, restrictions on methadone care, and stigma.5,6”
From Economic Evaluation of Extended-Release Buprenorphine for Persons With Opioid Use Disorder (2023) · cites this paper as [5]
The Current Progress section reports that most people with OUD do not receive medication treatment. Conceptual Challenges and Limitations describes insurance-coverage gaps and stigma, while Identification: Diagnosing OUD describes restrictions on methadone treatment in drug courts. The paper does not establish a limited number of prescribers as a reason for the treatment gap, and its account of methadone restrictions is specific to justice-involved patients. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 59 · Cited by 332
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [12]Williams AR. Performance measures and quality improvement for the opioid epidemic In: Opioid Addiction: An American Crisis (Compton M & Manseau MWeds.). APPI Press, 2018.
- [36]Lee JD, Rotrosen J, Nunes EV, Tanum L (2018). Effectiveness of XR-Naltrexone vs. Buprenorphine: Results of Two Randomized Trials. ASAM National Conference, San Diego, April 12-15, 2018.
- Authors
- Williams, A. R., Nunes, E. V., Bisaga, A., Levin, F. R., & Olfson, M.
- Affiliations
- New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, Arthur Robin
- Venue
- The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-01-02
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-10
- ISSN
- 0095-2990 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-9891
- PMC
- PMC6404749
- OpenAlex
- W2912522026
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 17
- FWCI
- 40.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23 DA044342-01)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
- Keywords
- opioid use disorder, cascade of care, opioid epidemic, opioid overdose prevention, medication-assisted treatment, methadone, buprenorphine, extended-release naltrexone, public health framework, prescription drug monitoring programs, naloxone, data collection and reporting
- MeSH terms
- Opioid Epidemic, Analgesics, Opioid, Humans, Opioid-Related Disorders, Public Health, Opiate Substitution Treatment, Drug Overdose
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