Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a kind of interdisciplinary model to clinical practice. This model of nursing has been gaining ground since its inception in 1992. It started in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) and spread to other professions such as nursing, education, and economics. It can be described as a “three legged stool” that works with three basic principles that are using the best available research evidence, clinical expertise, and client preferences and values. The process involves making clinical decisions on how to promote health and provide care through integrating the best methods in order to guarantee that patients receive the best available healthcare services from their providers (Kolodny & Frieden, 2018). This paper is going to analyze two journal articles on the topic of opioid abuse and then use Evidence-based practice in analyzing the author’s methods as well as findings. This strategy can be used to analyze articles written on opioid addiction. Opioid addiction is a chronic disease that leads to major social, health, and economic problems to its victims when addicted. Hey are a class of drugs that act on the nervous system to produce feelings of pain relief and pleasure. In many cases, doctors legally prescribe these drugs to help manage chronic and severe pain. However, continuous use leads to addiction and this is what leads to catastrophic outcomes to the addicts.
Background of the article
The first journal article that discusses this issue is titled Impact of Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction on Medicaid Expenditures and Health Services Utilization Rates in Vermont by Mary Kate Mohlman, Beth Tanzman, Karl Finison, Melanie Pinette, and Craig Jones. The authors of this article start by introducing the increase in opioid addiction rate in the United States and they seek to research on what can be done to alleviate the issue. The country has seen increasing rates of escalating health care costs, overdose deaths, and the tremendous social costs as a result of opioid addiction resulting in the need to have policy makers in the country to come up with strategies of addressing the issue as well as expanding treatment to people suffering from this kind of addiction (Kolodny & Frieden, 2018). The study was conducted to test the logic of investing in a pre-Hub & Spoke baseline for treating and evaluating addicts. Using a serial cross-sectional design from 2010 to 2015 to evaluate patients with opioid dependence addiction ( 2494 in the control group, 6158 in the intervention group), the study was about studying the assess to medical and treatment service expenditures for the people receiving medication-assisted treatment as compared to people receiving substance abuse treatment without any form of medication. The results the researchers found indicated that medication-assisted therapy can result in reduced general health care utilization and expenditures such as outpatient emergency department visits, inpatient hospital admissions, and Medicaid beneficiaries with opioid addiction.
Data Source and Sample Population
The authors reviewed the annual medical expenditures and utilization rates in Vermont Medicaid enrollees for a period of five years. The data was sourced from Vermont’s all-payer claims and the Vermont Health Care Uniform evaluating and Reporting and Evaluation System. Because limitations arising from other related systems, the researchers could not use a cohort design for data collection but instead relied on annual cross-sectional data for the five years under study. The study population comprised of people with Medicaid coverage. The study was done on people between the age of 18–64 years of age and they had claims in VHCURES indicating treatment for opioid addiction between the years under study. Within each year, people that participated in MAT were compared to members with opioid addiction and were receiving medication that was non-MAT therapies in nature. Utilization measures and other forms of expenditure were evaluated for the non-MAT and MAT groups over period running for six years. The inclusion criteria for the MAT group were based on data for the two that are buprenorphine and methadone.
Methadone is given to patients only at designated treatment facilities. Before 2013 in Vermont, buprenorphine was only prescribed in general medical offices. Only authorized physicians were allowed to prescribe it (Kolodny & Frieden, 2018). Non-MAT comparison group were identified using claims data such as only selecting members who have never received MAT and had in their lifetime received two opioid addiction diagnoses. The treatment for the opioid addiction for the non-MAT people included group and individual intensive outpatient programs, outpatient services, partial hospitalization, residential treatment services, and detoxification identified from the claims data using HCPCS and revenue codes. For each 12 months, non-MAT and MAT members were evaluated using health status and their demographics. Statistic estimates included age, sex, and province of living arrangement. Wellbeing status pointers included major emotional wellness issue (i.e., schizophrenia, significant dejection, bipolar and different psychoses), chose ceaseless ailment analyze such as asthma, consideration shortage hyperactivity issue (ADHD). Others included interminable obstructive aspiratory issue (COPD), congestive heart disappointment, coronary illness, misery, diabetes, and hypertension), and 3 M Clinical Risk Group (CRG) classifications, which were utilized to distinguish contrasts in wellbeing status for different conditions (e.g., malignancy) among the MAT and non-MAT populaces.
For reasons for guaranteeing a sufficiently extensive subsample, the CRG classifications were assembled into five classes: narcotic dependent just (which incorporated those dependent or subject to narcotics with no comorbidities or convoluting analyze); having a background marked by huge intense infection, a solitary minor unending ailment, or minor ceaseless illness in various organ frameworks (Kolodny & Frieden, 2018). Having a solitary predominant or moderate constant sickness; having critical endless ailment in different organ frameworks; and having prevailing endless malady in at least three organ frameworks, metastatic and confused malignancies, or calamitous conditions. Individuals with cases demonstrating pre-and perinatal consideration or HCV energy were additionally distinguished. A proportion of progression of enlistment in (“Medicaid in the Prior Year”) was allotted for a part that was taken a crack at Medicaid amid both the investigation time frame year and the earlier year.
The all out Expenditures show incorporated the expenses of every single therapeutic administration and the expenses related with narcotic enslavement medications for both the MAT gathering and the non-MAT gathering, as depicted previously. The complete Expenditures without Treatment show rejected all narcotic enslavement treatment expenses to decide the effect of MAT on medicinal uses alone. All use results and use rates recorded were balanced for fractional enlistment inside the timetable year and the autonomous factors included MAT status, sexual orientation, age gathering, pre-and perinatal status, HCV status. Medicaid in earlier year status, and wellbeing status as estimated by CRGs. Constant infections and emotional wellness issue were barred from the relapse since they were included by the CRGs. The autonomous variable of MAT v. non-MAT was made as a twofold variable, as were “Ladies with pre-and perinatal consideration”, HCV, and “Medicaid in the earlier year (Gottlieb S, Woodcock, 2017). The remaining were staggered pointer factors – the model balanced for age and sex bunches utilizing guys 18– 34 as the reference gathering, and wellbeing status dependent on CRG bunches utilizing “narcotic dependent just” as the reference gathering.
Evaluation of whether the evidence presented supports the outcome of the study and implications for future research
Given that complete medicinal services consumptions did not vary essentially (p-value 0.07) even with the greater expenses of MAT administrations and prescriptions, the viewpoint for a statewide program concentrated on giving support MAT is ideal. While the all out addictions treatment costs were higher for the MAT gathering, these were counterbalanced by much lower social insurance use and uses, showing an inconsequential generally cost contrast between the MAT and non-MAT gatherings. While causation cannot be resolved in this investigation, the outcomes, alongside solid proof that support MAT is increasingly successful at accomplishing treatment maintenance and lessening narcotic use present an influential contention for growing a MAT-focused sedative compulsion treatment program all through the territory of Vermont.
At the finish of this current examination’s time span (mid-2013), Vermont, through its social insurance conveyance change program, the Vermont Blueprint for Health, started to reveal a thorough administrations configuration based on MAT and the open door for Health Homes offered under the Affordable Care Act. The objective of this program, otherwise called Hub (OTPs) and Spoke (OBOT or buprenorphine-recommending suppliers), was to grow access to methadone, improve methadone treatment programs by connecting Health Home Services with essential and network benefits, and giving clinical staff to help and supplement essential consideration suppliers waivered to endorse buprenorphine.
The consequences of this investigation fill in as a solid benchmark by which to assess Vermont’s Hub and Spoke program and to survey whether the decrease in medicinal expenses have proceeded under the program’s administration upgrades. Also, the technique utilized in this investigation will be extended to dissect the effect of MAT past social insurance, for example, on detainment rates, work rates, and rates of kid and family benefits. These ensuing investigations will give a more full comprehension of the societal expenses and funds of narcotic dependence and treatment.
Limitation of the study
While VHCURES information has been approved as a dependable information source, they do have a few constraints applicable to this investigation. In the first place, as referenced over, the de-distinguished status of VHCURES makes associate examinations troublesome; along these lines we utilized yearly cross-sectional for every year in the investigation time frame.
Secondly, the dataset did not take into account the estimation of methadone costs in detachment. The HCPCS program code, which is utilized to recognize MAT individuals accepting methadone and their treatment costs, consolidates prescription and wellbeing home administrations (Gottlieb S, Woodcock, 2017). Besides, methadone is absent in drug store claims, restricting the capacity to discover treated individuals and segregate methadone medicine costs. The information may incorporate some inclination because of the impact of exceptions. While exceptions were topped at the 99th percentile, they could at present conceivably impact the outcomes given the little example measure. In any case, since the yearly dollar sums were predictable (information not appeared), this impact is likely insignificant.
The second article to be analyzed in this research paper is titled ‘The effectiveness of opioid substitution treatments for patients with opioid dependence: a systematic review and multiple treatment comparison protocol’ by Brittany Burns Dennis, Leen Naji, Monica Bawor, Ashley Bonner, Michael Varenbut, Jeff Daiter, Carolyn Plater, Guillaume Pare, David C Marsh, Andrew Worster, Dipika Desai, Zainab Samaan and Lehana Thabane. The authors start by stating that Opioids are psychoactive pain relieving drugs endorsed for relief from discomfort and palliative consideration. Because of their addictive potential, exertion and cautiousness in controlling solutions is expected to maintain a strategic distance from abuse and reliance. Notwithstanding the exertion, the commonness of narcotic use issue keeps on rising. Narcotic substitution treatments are regularly used to treat narcotic reliance; in any case, there is insignificant accord regarding which treatment is best. Accessible medicines incorporate methadone, heroin, buprenorphine, just as naltrexone. This precise audit plans to survey and analyze the impact of all accessible narcotic substitution treatments on the treatment of narcotic reliance.
The creators will look Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and the National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry. The title, theoretical, and full-content screening will be finished in copy. Whenever suitable, different treatment examination Bayesian meta-systematic techniques will be performed to conclude synopsis insights evaluating the viability of all narcotic substitution treatments regarding maintenance and reaction to treatment (as estimated through proceeded with narcotic maltreatment).
While this survey does not exhaustively address non-pharmacological intercessions for sedative fixation, when utilized alone, these methodologies ought to be considered to lie outside the area of first-line proof based treatment. Authentic information show poor result in patients gave just psychosocial intercessions. Regardless of whether constrained or deliberate, come back to sedative use approaches 80% inside two years of serious private treatment. While a methodical survey by the Cochrane joint effort demonstrates some psychosocial mediations might be better than others, a different audit found that psychosocial intercession alone was mediocre compared to methadone upkeep for such results as maintenance in treatment and decrease in sedative positive pee toxicology tests (Gottlieb S, Woodcock, 2017). This later audit additionally showed a pattern for more noteworthy mortality in psychosocial versus methadone treatment, a finding upheld in different reports from populaces that get no treatment, psychosocial treatment just, or the individuals who intentionally cease pharmacotherapy
Utilizing proof picked up from this methodical survey, we foresee spreading a target audit of the current accessible writing on the adequacy of all narcotic substitution treatments for the treatment of narcotic use issue. The consequences of this efficient survey are basic to the further upgrade of clinical practice in dependence medication.
Broad research demonstrates that every one of the three accessible drugs used to treat sedative dependence have better treatment results than non prescription based treatments. Expanded maintenance lessens mortality, improves social capacity, and is related with diminished medication use and improved personal satisfaction. In this manner, these prescriptions help patients accomplish “recuperation” as it is presently defined. While methadone and buprenorphine seem to have better results than both oral and intramuscular naltrexone, more straightforward correlations are required (Gottlieb S, Woodcock, 2017). Further work is expected to recognize and anticipate treatment reaction to help individualize prescription decision. Until such information are accessible, it is reasonable, and inside a patient’s entitlement to educated decision, for treatment experts to give data with respect to these standard treatment choices, their normal results and potential unfriendly impacts, and enable the patient to pick the prescription that best suits his or her need.
Gottlieb S, Woodcock J. Marshaling FDA benefit-risk expertise to address the current opioid
abuse epidemic. JAMA. 2017;318:421–422
Kolodny A, Frieden TR. Ten steps the federal government should take now to reverse the opioid
addiction epidemic. JAMA. 2017;318:1537–1538.
Han B, Compton WM, Blanco C, Crane E, Lee J, Jones CM. Prescription opioid use, misuse, anduse disorders in U.S. adults: 2015 national survey on drug use and health. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:293–301.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more