This writers’ area of interest is how methadone treats opioid addiction. The two research articles chosen are, for qualative, A call for consensus in defining efficacy in clinical trials for opioid addiction: combined results from a systematic review and qualitative study in patients receiving pharmacological assisted therapy for opioid use disorder (Dennis, et al., 2020) , and Slow Release Oral Morphine Versus Methadone for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (Klimas, et al., 2019) for qantative.

The qualitative study focused on the effectiveness of methadone in treating clients who had an opioid addiction. Patients were recruited from two opioid addiction treatment centers in Ontario, Canada using purposive sampling. Qualitative methods were used to establish patients’ perspectives of successful addiction treatment. Structured open-ended interviews were conducted to explore each patient’s end-goals of therapy. These interviews identified common themes with regard to addiction treatment goals. Outcomes measures in terms of employed in OUD trials highlights a major lack of consensus in our evidence base when determining appropriate endpoints for establishing treatment effectiveness for OSATs (Dennis, et al., 2020). A substantial number of outcomes as well as variations in the definitions and measurements of the same outcomes were reported across trials. In the results section it was concluded that there were more patients that within the eight broadest domains abstinence and substance use behavior, physical health, psychiatric health and symptoms, personal and social functioning, resource utilization, intervention adherence, intervention acceptance, and global quality of life and addiction severity are 21 more specific outcome domains e.g., illicit opioid use, illicit non-opioid substance use, and across these outcomes there exist 53 separate definitions or measurements (Dennis, et al., 2020). In the Discussion section, the majority of patients agreed that abstinence and reduction in opioid use was a primary goal in their treatment, they also stressed goals for therapy comprising employment, improved relationship stability, reduction in the money spent on drugs, as well as improvements in physical and psychiatric symptoms such as pain, depression, and anxiety (Dennis, et al., 2020).

The article, Slow-release oral morphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid use disorder, (Klimas, et al., 2019) The objective to this study was to assess the efficacy of slow-release oral morphine (SROM) as a treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All participants in the included studies met the DSM-IV or V diagnostic criteria for OUD; mean age 33.1 years; of the three studies that reported on gender,17 26 2724.4% were women. The mean duration of trials was 18 weeks (range 11 to 24 weeks). The mean dose of SROM provided to participants was 506.8 mg/day, and the mean dose of methadone was 67.2 mg/day. All four studies were conducted in an outpatient setting, and assessed SROM vs methadone, with only one study by Giacomuzzi et al. explicitly stating psychosocial support. This study also assessed buprenorphine in comparison with SROM and methadone. The present meta-analysis demonstrates the consistent pattern in clinical trials evaluating the impact of SROM. Because most OUD patients do not access agonist therapies, and since poor retention in methadone has been linked to heightened mortality and other health outcomes, SROM may have a promising role in OUD treatment, especially given methadone’s known side-effect profile, the likely attractiveness of SROM to some patients and the apparent reduction in craving when on SROM in comparison to methadone (Klimas, et al., 2019). Klimas, et al. (2019) went into detail in the Discussion section that current evidence suggests that SROM may be generally equal to methadone in the treatment of OUD. The results from two studies indicated that SROM reduces cravings for heroin more than methadone. These findings are relevant to recent high-level recommendations suggesting the need to consider re-purposing existing medications for the treatment of OUD (Klimas, et al., 2019).

This writer has a difficult time understanding some the numbers used in the meta-analysis but fins looking at the graphs helps to break it down. In this writer’s chosen work within human services, she will be working in group therapy specifically related to drug and alcohol addiction. It will be important for this writer to understand the how and why methadone treatment works for cravings and other mental heath issues within addiction.

References

Dennis, B. B., Sanger, N., Bawor, M., Naji, L., Plater, C., Worster, A., . . . Samaan, L. T. (2020). A call for consensus in defining efficacy in clinical trials for opioid addiction: combined results from a systematic review and qualitative study in patients receiving pharmacological assisted therapy for opioid use disorder. Trials, doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3995-y.

Klimas, J., Gorfinkel, L., Giacomuzzi, S. M., Ruckes, C., Socías, M. E., & Wood, N. F. (2019). Slow release oral morphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid use disorder . BMJ, doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025799.

Pyrczak, F., & Tcherni-Buzzeo, M. (2019). Evaluating Research in Academic Journals. New York, NY: Routledge.

Leeb et al. (2020) conducted a study of the COVID-19 pandemic impacting the mental health of young individuals resulting in emergency departments visits. According to the discussion and results section of this study, due to school closures and restrictions many children faced mental health issues. Adolescents aged 12–17 years accounted for the highest proportion of mental health–related ED visits in both 2019 and 2020, followed by children aged 5–11 years (Leeb et al., 2020). Between March 29 to April 25, 2020, about 70% of children 14 years of age and younger visited the emergency department however, individuals of all ages decreased significantly for asthma (–10%), otitis media (–65%), and sprain- and strain-related injuries (–39%), yet psychosocial factors increased 69% (Leeb et al, 2020). The COVID-19 put an impact on health worldwide.

The qualitative case study discus implementations that can be utilized to decrease alcohol consumption. Sharma et al. (2020), express how boredom, stress, and lack of socialization has cause individuals to increase or experience bad habits. This study resulted in theory-based or evidence-based alcohol reduction educational programs at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels must be implemented during the pandemic to help in identifying methods for behavior change, adjust the timing of interventions, help in choosing the right mix of strategies, and foster replication (Sherma et al., 2020

References:

Leeb, R. T., Bitsko, R. H., Radhakrishnan, L., Martinez, P., Njai, R., & Holland, K. M. (2020). Mental health and COVID. 14-19 Learning & Skills Bulletin, 353, 39–43. https://doi-org.postu.idm.oclc.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6945a3externalicon

Pan, M. L. (2015). Preparing Literature Reviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (5th ed.). Pyrczak Publishing.

Sharma, M., Batra, K., & Nahar, V. K. (2020). Alcohol Consumption in COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Alcohol Education. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 64(2), 8–19.

Sheila H

RE: Unit 4.2 DB: Limitations for Research Designs

Using the articles on Internet Addiction that I chose for DB 4.1, I have some relevant suggestions to address the limitations for each research design. I am beginning to see the pros and cons of both quantitative and qualitative research designs. Quantitative research studies focus on summarizing all the results into statistics, which can sometimes be misleading, for example if a mean is reported and keeps in an outlier number that makes the mean completely off (Pyrczak & Tcherni-Buzzeo, 2019). Qualitative studies can falter because there is so much subjectivity in different areas of reporting findings (Pyrczak & Tcherni-Buzzeo, 2019). In the two articles I reviewed, there were limitations inherent to the research style chosen.

Jasmine J

RE: Unit 4.2 DB: Limitations for Research Designs

Limitations are important for understanding, analyzing, and identifying errors or bias. Although all limitations do not have to be recognized; it is essential for the ones that could possibly impact the study to be reviewed. Some limitations this writer was able to identify in her first article by Leeb et al. (2020) were sample size, timing, and visual. This writer believes this study may have been stronger if researchers also had participants there were adults and elderly to compare the results between children who had emergency visits. In addition, this study concluded in October 2020, although the world is still experiencing issues in relation to COVID-19. If researchers provided additional ways to test this theory during the period from November 2020 to present could have also made this study stronger. Last, this case study lacked graphs and charts. Although, statistical measures were identified throughout the study, the audience may have grasped a thorough picture if some type of visual was used. For the second article used, this writer also observed a few limitations that could be altered for a clearer study for readers. Sharma et al. (2020) lacked mild organization. This could be reorganized by ensuring the results and discussion section was able to identify the issues the researchers found and how further research could be up for debate, if needed. Also, researchers did not specify the hypothesis. This writer understood the concept of the study which was the consumption of alcohol during the pandemic; however, it was not clear to what researchers were willing to change. If the researchers add a thorough hypothesis, it will help the audience engage and have better understanding.