Cited by 88Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMental Health Treatment and Access

A US national randomized study to guide how best to reduce stigma when describing drug‐related impairment in practice and policy

Open access
Kelly, John F., Greene, M. Claire, Abry, Alexandra·2021·Addiction

Abstract

Background and Aims: Drug‐related impairment is persistently stigmatized delaying and preventing treatment engagement. To reduce stigma, various medical terms (e.g. ‘chronically relapsing brain disease’, ‘disorder’) have been promoted in diagnostic systems and among national health agencies, yet some argue that over‐medicalization of drug‐related impairment lowers prognostic optimism and reduces personal agency. While intensely debated, rigorous empirical study is lacking. This study investigated whether random exposure to one of six common ways of describing drug‐related impairment induces systematically different judgments. Design, Setting and Participants: Cross‐sectional survey, US general population, among a nationally representative non‐institutionalized sample (n = 3635; 61% response rate; December 2019–January 2020). Intervention: Twelve vignettes (six terms × gender) describing someone treated for opioid‐related impairment depicted in one of six ways as a(n): ‘chronically relapsing brain disease’, ‘brain disease’, ‘disease’, ‘illness’, ‘disorder’ or ‘problem’. Measurements: Multi‐dimensional stigma scale assessing: blame; social exclusion; prognostic optimism, continuing care, and danger (a = 0.70–0.83). Findings: US adults [mean age = 47.81, confidence interval (CI) = 47.18–48.44; 52.4% female; 63.14% white] rated the same opioid‐impaired person differently across four of five stigma dimensions depending on which of six terms they were exposed to. ‘Chronically relapsing brain disease’ induced the lowest stigmatizing blame attributions (P < 0.05); at the same time, this term decreased prognostic optimism [mean difference (MD) = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.30] and increased perceived need for continuing care (MD = –0.26, 95% CI = –0.43, –0.09) and danger (MD = –0.13, 95% CI = –0.25, –0.02) when compared with ‘problem’. Compared with a man, a woman was blamed more for opioid‐related impairment (MD = –0.08, 95% CI = –0.15, –0.01); men were viewed as more dangerous (MD = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.19) and to be socially excluded (MD = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.09, 0.23). Conclusions: There does not appear to be one single medical term for opioid‐related impairment that can meet all desirable clinical and public health goals. To reduce stigmatizing blame, biomedical ‘chronically relapsing brain disease’ terminology may be optimal; to increase prognostic optimism and decrease perceived danger/social exclusion use of non‐medical terminology (e.g. ‘opioid problem’) may be optimal.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.15333

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]Ustun B. T., Chatterji S., Bickenbach J. E., Trotter R. T. II, Room R., Rehm J. et al, editors. Cross‐Cultural Views on Stigma, Valuation, Parity, and Societal Values Towards Disability. Disability and Culture: Universalism and Diversity. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber; 2001, pp. 247– 291.
  2. [8]American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). Definition of Addiction [press release]. September 15, 2019. Rockville, MD: ASAM; 2019.
  3. [14]Kelly J. F. Towards an Addictionary: a proposal for more precise terminology. Alcohol Treat Q 2004; 22: 79– 87.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelly, J. F., Greene, M. C., & Abry, A.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Kelly, John F.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-12-14
Volume
116
Issue
7
Pages
1757-1767
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W3104506876
Cited by
88
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
8.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K24AA0022136)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
opioid use disorder, medicalization of addiction, diagnostic terminology, stigma reduction, blame attribution, social exclusion, perceived danger, gender differences in stigma, continuing care, treatment engagement, harm reduction, harm reduction policy, harm reduction services
MeSH terms
Adult, Analgesics, Opioid, Cross-Sectional Studies, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Female, Humans, Male, Social Stigma, Policy

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