The role of social network support on treatment outcomes for medication for opioid use disorder: a systematic review
====================================================================================================================

* Navin Kumar
* Benjamin A. Howell
* William Oles
* Kamila Janmohamed
* Selena Lee
* Patrick G. O’Connor
* Marcus Alexander

## Abstract

**Background** Despite the possible influence of social network support on medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment, there has been no systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of social network support on MOUD.

**Methods** We searched electronic research databases, specialist journals and grey literature till February 2020. We included experimental and observational studies regarding individuals receiving MOUD, and intersections with social network support.

**Results** Of 4116 articles screened, we identified 41 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Nineteen studies reported treatment retention/adherence as an MOUD outcome. Three were experimental and 16 were observational. Seventeen studies indicated that social net-work support was related with improved MOUD treatment retention/adherence. Of the studies with statistically significant results, 12 involved family social network support, while five focused on combined family and peer social network support. Twenty-two studies reported reduced drug use/abstinence as an MOUD outcome. Ten were experimental and 12 were observational. Sixteen studies indicated that social network support was related to reduced drug use/abstinence. Of the studies with statistically significant results, 13 involved family social network support, while three focused on either peer network support or combined family and peer network support.

**Conclusions** Although evidence was limited, social network support was associated with MOUD treatment outcomes. Interventions around social network support could potentially augment MOUD treatment outcomes. Despite the variety of outcomes and social network support, we suggest the key role of social network support on broad MOUD outcomes.

## Introduction

Increasing access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is a key public health strategy in combating the opioid overdose epidemic [1, 2]. MOUD has several benefits such as decreases in mortality, increases in treatment adherence, decreases in heroin use, and augmented health, social and criminal justice outcomes [3, 4, 5]. World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations indicate that access to MOUD is key to treatment for opioid use disorder [6]. MOUD refers to several medications, primarily opioid agonist medications, like methadone and buprenorphine, and also opioid-antagonist medications such as naltrexone [7]. Although MOUD approaches are the most efficacious evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder [8], a significant number of MOUD patients do not receive favorable treatment outcomes (e.g. dropping out of treatment programs, illicit drug use) [9, 10]. We need greater understanding of how social network support functions with respect to MOUD treatment outcomes to improve treatment outcomes.

Although clinical delivery characteristics, baseline substance use behaviors, comorbid mental health or substance use disorders and patient demographics influence treatment outcomes [11, 12], less research has focused on how social network support is associated with treatment outcomes. Novel treatment paradigms, such as open access models, have gone a long way in decreasing barriers to treatment and improving engagement, but there is still unexplained variability in patient engagement and therefore an opportunity for improvement [13]. An open-access model is one where prospective patients are quickly enrolled in methadone maintenance treatment, regardless of ability to pay. Patients are provided real-time access to a range of group and individual treatment options [13].

Phenomena as diverse as cooperation, obesity, drug use, smoking, alcohol use may be associated with social networks [14, 15, 16, 17]. Similarly, recent work indicates that social networks, and the social support they provide, here termed social network support, may influence patterns of substance use, help-seeking, and adherence [18, 19, 20]. Previous systematic reviews detailed psychosocial interventions and MOUD [21, 22, 23], and the effectiveness of psychosocial plus any pharmacological interventions versus pharmacological alone for MOUD [24]. However, there is limited research around the role of social network support on MOUD treatment outcomes. Social network support is the social support one receives, positive or negative, from all the people with whom a social relationship is shared [25, 26]. Examples of positive social network support are information that one is cared for and loved or knowledge that one belongs to a social network of communication and mutual obligation [26]. Examples of negative social network support are information that one is not liked or excluded from a social network or group. Social network support in regard to MOUD treatment refers to interventions applying social network support-related techniques (e.g. experimental studies applying family, group therapies or related psychosocial interventions) or interventions that test association between social network support variables and MOUD treatment outcomes (e.g. observational studies with variables such as family or partner support).

The study objective was to review existing scientific evidence on the following research question: For MOUD patients (population), what influence does social network support have on MOUD (intervention) treatment outcomes (outcome)? This systematic review sought to provide policymakers, administrators, practitioners and researchers with a systematic and reproducible strategy to query the literature around the role of social network support on MOUD treatment outcomes. We reviewed evidence under two themes, derived from MOUD outcomes: Treatment retention/Adherence, Drug use/Abstinence. Within these themes, we divided studies by the following forms of social network support: Family, Peer, Combined family and peer, General.

## Methods

We conformed to frameworks and standard tools of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) [27, 28, 29] and Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines [30]. The protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018095645) on May 24, 2018.

### Search strategy

We searched online indexes, references in previous reviews/guidelines, and Clinicaltrials.gov. For more details on search strategy see Appendix.

#### Inclusion/Exclusion criteria

We included studies that met the following criteria:

*   randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals; other scientific publications (e.g. scientific monographs); nonpeer reviewed journals and grey literature (technical reports, conference papers).

*   participants sought treatment for opioid use or met criteria for opioid abuse, opioid dependence or opioid use disorder.

*   one or more variants of MOUD were offered (e.g. methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone).

*   the study reported social network support (e.g. family/partner/friend/peer/neighbor support, social network interventions [25, 26]) as interventions or as predictors for the outcome.

*   the study reported adherence to MOUD as an outcome e.g. medication adherence, program retention. There will be no restrictions on study design, population or comparator (if included). Studies excluded from review will be case reports, reviews, systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies, opinion pieces, editorials, comments, news articles, and letters.

### Outcomes

Primary outcomes are 1) MOUD retention which refers to time in treatment or length of stay; 2) MOUD adherence which pertains to medication (days the patient took their MOUD etc.); 3) opioid or other illicit drug use (cocaine, methamphetamine etc.), defined as the percentage of urine samples negative for opioids and/or self-reported drug use. For the purposes of the review, we grouped MOUD retention and adherence together, due to their underlying similarity regarding adherence to a MOUD regimen.

### Data extraction, review methods, quality assessments and data synthesis

We utilized a standardized template to extract data from each study. More detail on data extraction, review methods, quality assessments and data synthesis is contained in Appendix.

## Results

### Included studies

Results from the study selection process are indicated in Figure 1 and general study characteristics displayed in Table 1. Systematic searches yielded 4116 papers imported for screening, with 4087 studies screened for review (29 duplicates, see Figure 1). Screening yielded 213 articles for full-text review by two independent reviewers. Forty-one studies were deemed relevant to the review, summarized in Table 1. Thirteen were experimental studies, 28 were observational studies. The USA (18) and China (seven) were the most represented nations. Treatment and comparison groups were all drawn from opioid-dependent populations. Thirty interventions involved maintenance on methadone, six involved naltrexone, four involved methadone or buprenorphine, one involved methadone or LAAM (levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol), one involved naltrexone and methadone combination therapy, and one involved just buprenorphine.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/T1)

Table 1: 
Study characteristics related to design of study, MOUD drug used, target population, outcome, number of participants, follow-up and conclusions

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/F1)

Figure 1: 
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram of study selection

### Quality assessments

Tables 2 and 3 indicate the quality of experimental and observational studies. For experimental studies, allocation concealment was rarely reported and its impact on bias was not clear. The quality ratings for observational studies were overall high. We indicated relevant evidence and statistical significance for observational (see Fig 2) and experimental studies (see Fig 3) across treatment retention/adherence and drug use/abstinence outcomes, for each variety of social network support with a harvest plot [31]. Twenty-three observational studies met all five criteria [32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54] Four observational studies met four criteria [55, 56, 57, 58]. Observational studies on treatment retention/adherence, compared to drug use/abstinence, were more likely to fulfil the criteria for quality of execution, with 14 treatment retention/adherence studies meeting all five criteria [42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54]. No experimental studies met all five criteria. Two experimental studies met four criteria, both of which addressed drug use/abstinence [59, 60]. The remaining studies in this review met between zero and three criteria.

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/T2)

Table 2: 
Quality of Experimental Studies

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/T3)

Table 3: 
Quality of Observational Studies

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/F2)

Figure 2: 
Evidence for observational studies regarding the role of social network support on treatment outcomes for medication for opioid use disorder. A **supermatrix** covering all study outcome categories (columns) and forms of social network support (rows) by change in the outcome of interest. Each study is represented by a stacked bar. The height of each component corresponds to a quality score representing the suitability of study design with respect to five quality measures: description of inclusion/exclusion criteria, clear presentation of main results, explanation of methodology, presence of descriptive data and definition of variables. Each bar is annotated with the sample size.

![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/F3)

Figure 3: 
Evidence for experimental studies regarding the role of social network support on treatment outcomes for medication for opioid use disorder. A **supermatrix** covering all study outcome categories (columns) and forms of social network support (rows) by change in the outcome of interest. Each study is represented by a stacked bar. The height of each component corresponds to a quality score representing the suitability of study design with respect to five quality measures: allocation concealment, addressing of incomplete outcome data, intent-to-treat analysis, addressing of selection bias and adequate sequence generation. Each bar is annotated with the sample size.

### Social network support category assignment

We assigned studies one of the following social network support categories: family, peer, combined family and peer, general. Family social network support connoted studies where family members such as partner, parents or siblings provided support to the patient. Peer social network support denoted studies where peers such as friends, colleagues or other patients provided support. Studies involving outpatient group therapy or community-based support groups (Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous) were considered peer social network support. Combined family and peer social network support included aspects of both family and peer social network support. General social network support involved social network support that was not related to family, peer, combined family and peer, or general social network support e.g. some studies indicated unspecified social network support.

### Treatment retention/adherence

Nineteen studies reported treatment retention/adherence as an MOUD outcome. Three were experimental [61, 62, 63] and 16 were observational [43, 57, 44, 48, 53, 45, 51, 42, 49, 64, 46, 52, 58, 50, 47, 54]. Seventeen studies indicated that social network support was related with improved MOUD treatment retention/adherence [43, 57, 44, 48, 62, 63, 53, 45, 51, 42, 49, 64, 46, 52, 58, 50, 47]. There was one RCT which improved treatment retention/adherence [62]. Most statistically significant results involved family social network support, with a few studies focused on combined family and peer social network support. There was a single study on general social network support with statistically significant results and no studies on peer social network support that demonstrated statistically significant results.

#### Family social network support

Eleven of 13 studies exploring family social network support within the treatment retention/adherence outcome demonstrated significant improvements in treatment retention/adherence [62, 53, 52, 58, 50, 48, 64, 46, 49, 45, 51] and two had no significant change [61, 47]. Improvements in treatment outcome were found in both experimental [62, 45] and observational studies [53, 52, 58, 50, 48, 64, 46, 49, 51]. In one of the experimental studies, differences between control and treatment groups were large [62]. The study reported lower estimated probability of attrition at Month 12 [0.35 (control) vs. 0.55 (treatment)], higher median number of days of attendance [Month 6: 147 vs. 91 days; end-date: 225 vs. 142 days] [62]. The researchers evaluated the relative efficacy of a combination of a psychosocial intervention and standard of care MOUD versus standard of care on methadone attrition and treatment attendance. Family members provided support (e.g. recognizing participant improvement in daily life after starting MOUD) during the family-centric sessions of the interventions. In the other experimental study [45], some participants received multiple family therapy and the standard therapy, with the rest receiving the standard therapy which included counseling, psychotherapy and outreach. Multiple family therapy sought to build and strengthen family ties, support parents and partners in monitoring patient behavior, among other goals. Findings indicated that the multiple family therapy group had a larger continuous time of naltrexone ingestion and remained in the treatment program longer than clients who did not receive multiple family therapy [45]. For the observational studies, living with one’s children, good family relationships and higher levels of perceived family support were associated with improved MOUD outcomes [51, 53, 52]. Conversely, absence of family support and living in an unstable relationship (where the relationship was marked with frequent arguments or fights) were related to reduced MOUD outcomes [46, 64].

#### Combined family and peer social network support

All five studies exploring combined family and peer social network support within the treatment retention/adherence outcome indicated statistically significant outcomes [43, 57, 44, 63, 42]. Improvements in treatment outcome were found in one experimental study [63] and four observational studies [43, 57, 44, 42]. The experimental study, applying behavioral naltrexone therapy, reported a positive correlation between length of time in treatment, and adherence and opioidfree urine samples [63]. Behavioral Naltrexone Therapy was delivered over a six-month period in weekly and network therapy sessions, comprised of Relapse Prevention, Community Reinforcement Approach and Network Therapy. For the observational studies, positive family relationships, no communication with former drug-taking peers and disclosing one’s health issues to friends were associated with retention [44, 57].

#### General social network support

We found one study that explored general social network support [54]. The results were statistically non-significant.

### Drug use/abstinence

Twenty-two studies reported drug use/abstinence as an MOUD outcome. Ten were experimental [65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 59, 60, 72] and 12 were observational [34, 33, 55, 35, 36, 37, 56, 38, 39, 40, 41, 32]. Sixteen studies indicated that social network support was related with reduced drug use/abstinence [67, 68, 69, 33, 55, 35, 36, 72, 37, 41, 56, 70, 59, 38, 71, 39]. Several RCTs demonstrated the role of social network support in decreasing drug use/abstinence [67, 68, 69, 70, 59, 71]. The most commonly detailed variant was family social network support, while six studies explored combined family and peer social network support, peer social network support, or general social network support.

#### Family social network support

Thirteen of 16 studies exploring family social network support within the drug use/abstinence outcome demonstrated significant improvements in treatment retention/adherence [67, 68, 69, 33, 55, 35, 36, 37, 56, 70, 38, 71, 39] and three had no significant change [34, 65, 66]. Improvements in outcome were indicated in five experimental studies [67, 68, 69, 70, 71] and eight observational studies [33, 55, 35, 36, 37, 56, 38, 39]. Two of the experimental studies reported large differences between control and treatment groups. The first study [71] reported a higher proportion of drugfree patients six and twelve months in both intervention groups (22% and 15% for family therapy) compared to the standard treatment group (5% and 0%) and low contact group (8% at both marks). The researchers evaluated the efficacy of family therapy compared to a “low contact” intervention and standard psychotherapy. All groups also received MOUD. The family intervention comprised of up to sixteen sessions and involved the patient’s family or partner. Sessions were based on the discussion of family relationships and MOUD. The low contact treatment comprised of monthly, standardized 30-minute interviews for up to 12 months. Standard treatment involved supportive counselling and the delivery of information related to managing drug use. In the other experimental study repoting large differences between control and treatment groups [67], patients were assigned to a supplemented MOUD treatment with 33 sessions of family training and nine months of home-based case management, or the control group with standard MOUD. Family training focused on relapse prevention and coping, anger management and child development. At 12 months, participants in the treatment arm reported less drug use than those in the control arm [67]. For the observational studies, increased social support [39] and having a spouse or child in one’s social network [38, 55] were associated with reduced drug use and abstinence. Conversely, factors such as family conflict [56], interactions with drug-using friends [56, 33] and low family support [58] were associated with poorer treatment outcomes.

#### Peer social network support

There were two studies, both with statistically significant outcomes, which explored peer social network support within the drug use/abstinence outcome [41, 59]. In the experimental study based in Germany, participants were assigned to MOUD or MOUD and group psychotherapy. Patients in the psychotherapy group demonstrated less drug use than control participants [59]. Psychotherapy centered on the patient’s understanding of situations predisposing drug use. In the observational study, narcotics anonymous meeting attendance in the past six months was associated with drug abstinence [41].

#### Combined family and peer social network support

We found one study that explored combined family and peer social network support within the drug-use/abstinence outcome that had statistically significant results [19]. The remaining two studies did not demonstrate significant results [60, 32]. In the experimental study demonstrating statistically significant results [19], individuals who inject drugs were recruited from a community needle exchange group and an MOUD program. Patients attended a weekly community support group with a drug-free family or friend, and participated in weekly community activities to expand drug-free social support. Results indicated reductions in heroin use (27 vs. 17 days/month), intravenous drug use (27 days vs. 20 days/month) and number of injections (123 vs. 48 injections/month).

#### General social network support

A single study explored general social network support within the drug use/abstinence outcome [40]. Results were non-significant.

### Synthesis

Table 4 synthesized the 41 studies per theme and outcome indicating positive treatment effects or no effect. Table 4 also indicated whether biases may have understated or over-reported treatment effects, if any. Evidence was not consistent for either outcome, although studies overall indicated that social network support was positively associated with MOUD treatment outcomes. This information was derived from Table 2. For experimental studies, bias was considered likely to understate positive outcomes in one study, to exaggerate in four and unclear in the remaining eight studies. The most common source of bias for experimental studies was the lack of intent-to-treat analysis.

View this table:
[Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/20/2020.07.18.20156950/T4)

Table 4: 
Synthesis

## Discussion

In this systematic review, we presented a current and comprehensive synthesis of the published literature on the role of social network support on MOUD treatment outcomes. We examined the effect of social network support on two MOUD treatment outcomes: Treatment retention/adherence; Drug use/abstinence. We detailed 41 observational and experimental studies over a range of social network support variants. Overall, social network support was associated with improved MOUD treatment outcomes. However, given the large proportion (21%) of non-significant findings [60, 34, 65, 40, 66, 32, 61, 54], more research is necessary to establish the relationship between social network support and MOUD treatment outcomes. We were unable to conduct a meta-analysis due to variations within outcomes. Future studies can explore if certain variants of social network support are more effective than others at improving MOUD treatment retention/adherence. Quality of observational studies was overall high, but quality of experimental studies was lower. Previous reviews explored psychosocial interventions and MOUD [21, 22, 23], but there is limited work around the effect of social network support on MOUD outcomes. We thus extend the literature by detailing the role of social network support on MOUD outcomes, broadening the scope of social networks regarding health outcomes. Given the several promising studies in our review, utilizing social network support in MOUD treatment may improve overall treatment outcomes.

Our results did not indicate whether some variants of social network support were more effective than others in improving treatment outcomes. The evidence base for family social network support appears the largest, compared to other variants. Thus, treatment providers wishing to add a social network support component to their interventions may use family social network support given the overall limited evidence. Family social network support is associated with improved treatment outcomes [37], especially in jurisdictions such as China, where families are often a large part of a patient’s life [37]. We suggest that interventions harnessing family social network support could be more efficacious in societies where families are heavily involved in a patient’s life. Future research can explore how to leverage on socio-cultural norms to improve treatment outcomes.

Findings did not detail if combined family and peer social network support was more effective at improving treatment outcomes, compared to interventions focused on peer or family social network support. Our results indicated that family or peer social network support on their own may contribute to improved treatment outcomes, so it may be that these combined would also have a similar or improved effect on treatment outcomes. Future work can explore if interventions that combine different variants of social network support are more effective than interventions that use a single variant of social network support. If combined social network support interventions are found to be more efficacious, such approaches can be used to augment existing large-scale MOUD programs.

While social network support seems to have an overall positive influence on MOUD treatment outcomes, some forms of peer and family interaction may have negative effects on treatment outcomes. Family member opioid prescription [73] and peer opioid misuse may reduce patent treatment outcomes [74]. This may suggest that social network support interventions which involve family and/or peers may be more effective if the patient’s social network has minimal numbers of opioid users. It is likely not possible to prevent patients from interacting with friends or families who use opioids, prescribed or otherwise. Treatment providers can survey patients to better understand the opioid use practices in their social network to see if this affects treatment outcomes. Interventions can be customized for patients who have a large number of opioid using contacts. It may also be possible to engage patients with such social networks in disseminating harm reduction-centric information around opioid use to their social network. This may extend the reach of social network support interventions in not only improving patient outcomes, but also improving broader community well-being. Future work can detail how to engage MOUD patients as providers of evidence-based opioid-related messaging.

Our findings are of great relevance given varied MOUD treatment outcomes. With MOUD being the most effective treatment for opioid use disorder, it is critical that researchers develop the most efficacious MOUD intervention. Our results may suggest that social network techniques can be integrated effectively into existing MOUD approaches to improve treatment outcomes. Governments and public health authorities seeking to improve treatment outcomes can incorporate some of the MOUD interventions noted in our review. We thus provide some policy implications. Public health authorities can encourage or provide a financial incentive for treatment providers who wish to use social network support or other similar techniques to augment MOUD. Such agencies could incentivize treatment providers to include different forms of social network support in their programs to determine which is most efficacious and simultaneously build the research base on social network support in MOUD approaches. Similarly, in absence of a large evidence base for social network support-based MOUD approaches, treatment providers with generic approaches (i.e. without any form of behavioral approach) can encourage patients to seek social support from their family, friends or peers.

The main strength of the study is that we applied a reproducible and transparent procedure for a systematic literature review. A strength is the explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria which centered on clearly delineated MOUD outcomes. We detailed the population, intervention and outcomes included, along with data extraction methods and search strategy. We also centered on the specific variants of social network support on MOUD treatment outcomes.

## Limitations

Most of the studies had key methodological concerns. We emphasized more robust study designs and assessed the probable impact of bias to compensate for methodological weaknesses. Possible sources of bias were: group baseline differences; selection bias; attrition bias; differential rates of follow-up. Selection bias may have exaggerated or under-reported treatment effects. If rates of attrition were relatively high or greater in untreated groups, there may be a possibility that treatment effects were overestimated if participants lost to follow-up had greater negative out-comes. A few studies in this review conducted analysis to control for bias through multivariate analysis and/or comparison of losses to follow-up with those followed-up. Attempts to account for biases may not always be successful and we thus assessed the risk of biases (see Table 4), providing an assessment of probable impact of bias on various outcomes. Limitations also arose from differences in methods of reviewed studies, making it more complex to assess or synthesize all studies under the same rubric. The details provided on methods and analysis was highly varied, possibly leading to fluctuations in the confidence level of results.

## Conclusions

Although evidence was limited, social network support seems related to a range of MOUD treatment outcomes. Interventions around social network support could potentially augment MOUD treatment outcomes, possibly playing a role in mitigating the opioid epidemic. Future research can explore other forms of social network support. For example, the role of employer social network support may be important to treatment outcomes given the role of workplace authority figures in the lives of MOUD patients [75].

## Data Availability

All journals reviewed are publically indexed.

*   Received July 18, 2020.
*   Revision received July 18, 2020.
*   Accepted July 20, 2020.


*   © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## References

1.  [1].Murthy Vivek H. Ending the opioid epidemic—a call to action New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;375:2413–2415.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMp1612578&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27959718&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

2.  [2]. Crowley Ryan,  Kirschner Neil, Dunn Andrew S, Bornstein Sue S. Health and public policy to facilitate effective prevention and treatment of substance use disorders involving illicit and prescription drugs: An American College of Physicians position paper Annals of internal medicine. 2017;166:733–736.
    
    

3.  [3].Mattick Richard P,  Breen Courtney,  Kimber Jo,  Davoli Marina. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2009.
    
    

4.  [4]. Gowing Linda,  Farrell Michael,  Bornemann Reinhard, Sullivan Lynn E,  Ali Robert. Substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2008.
    
    

5.  [5]. Tilson Hugh,  Aramrattana Apinun,  Bozzette Samuel, et al. Preventing HIV infection among injecting drug users in high-risk countries: an assessment of the evidence Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. 2007.
    
    

6.  [6].World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. WHO |Guidelines for the psychosocially assisted pharmacological treatment of opioid dependence tech. rep.World Health Organization 2009.
    
    

7.  [7]. Hedrich Dagmar,  Alves Paula,  Farrell Michael,  Stöver Heino,  Møller Lars,  Mayet Soraya. The effectiveness of opioid maintenance treatment in prison settings: a systematic review Addiction. 2012;107:501–517.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03676.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21955033&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000299997000007&link_type=ISI) 

8.  [8]. Fanucchi Laura, Springer Sandra A,  Korthuis P Todd. Medications for Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder among Persons Living with HIV Current HIV/AIDS Reports. 2019;16:1–6.
    
    

9.  [9]. Feelemyer Jonathan,  Des Jarlais Don,  Arasteh Kamyar, Abdul-Quader Abu S,  Hagan Holly. Retention of participants in medication-assisted programs in low-and middle-income countries: an international systematic review Addiction. 2014;109:20–32.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/add.12303&link_type=DOI) 

10. [10]. Burns Lucy,  Gisev Natasa,  Larney Sarah, et al. A longitudinal comparison of retention in buprenorphine and methadone treatment for opioid dependence in New South Wales, Australia Addiction. 2015;110:646–655.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

11. [11].Kelly Sharon M, O’Grady Kevin E,  Mitchell Shannon Gwin, Brown Barry S, Schwartz Robert P. Predictors of methadone treatment retention from a multi-site study: a survival analysis Drug and alcohol dependence. 2011;117:170–175.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.01.008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21310552&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000294240300012&link_type=ISI) 

12. [12].Proctor Steven L, Copeland Amy L, Kopak Albert M, Hoffmann Norman G, Herschman Philip L,  Polukhina Nadiya. Predictors of patient retention in methadone maintenance treatment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2015;29:906.
    
    

13. [13].Madden Lynn M, Farnum Scott O, Eggert Kathryn F, et al. An investigation of an open-access model for scaling up methadone maintenance treatment Addiction. 2018;113:1450– 1458.
    
    

14. [14].Christakis Nicholas A, Fowler James H. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network New England journal of medicine. 2008;358:2249–2258.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMsa0706154&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18499567&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256023600007&link_type=ISI) 

15. [15].Fowler James H, Christakis Nicholas A. Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107:5334–5338.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTA3LzEyLzUzMzQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wNy8yMC8yMDIwLjA3LjE4LjIwMTU2OTUwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

16. [16].Kim David A, Hwong Alison R,  Stafford Derek, et al. Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: a cluster randomised controlled trial The Lancet. 2015;386:145–153.
    
    

17. [17].Shakya Holly B,  Stafford Derek,  Hughes D Alex, et al. Exploiting social influence to magnify population-level behaviour change in maternal and child health: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of network targeting algorithms in rural Honduras BMJ open. 2017;7:e012996.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiNy8zL2UwMTI5OTYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wNy8yMC8yMDIwLjA3LjE4LjIwMTU2OTUwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

18. [18]. Eitan Shoshana, Emery Michael A,  Bates ML Shawn, Horrax Christopher. Opioid addiction: Who are your real friends? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2017;83:697–712.
    
    

19. [19]. Kidorf Michael,  Latkin Carl, Brooner Robert K. Presence of drug-free family and friends in the personal social networks of people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder Journal of substance abuse treatment. 2016;70:87–92.
    
    

20. [20].Wagner Karla D,  Iverson Ellen, Wong Carolyn F, et al. Personal social network factors associated with overdose prevention training participation Substance use & misuse. 2013;48:21– 31.
    
    

21. [21]. Dugosh Karen,  Abraham Amanda,  Seymour Brittany,  McLoyd Keli,  Chalk Mady,  Festinger David. A systematic review on the use of psychosocial interventions in conjunction with medications for the treatment of opioid addiction Journal of addiction medicine. 2016;10:91.
    
    

22. [22].Brown Aaron R. A systematic review of psychosocial interventions in treatment of opioid addiction Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions. 2018;18:249–269.
    
    

23. [23]. Dutra Lissa,  Stathopoulou Georgia, Basden Shawnee L, Leyro Teresa M, Powers Mark B, Otto Michael W. A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders American Journal of Psychiatry. 2008;165:179–187.
    
    

24. [24]. Amato Laura,  Minozzi Silvia,  Davoli Marina,  Vecchi Simona. Psychosocial and pharma-cological treatments versus pharmacological treatments for opioid detoxification Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2011.
    
    

25. [25].Huberman Bernardo A, Romero Daniel M,  Wu Fang. Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope arXiv preprint arXiv:0812.1045. 2008.
    
    

26. [26].Pearson Judith E. The definition and measurement of social support. Journal of Counseling & Development. 1986.
    
    

27. [27]. Moher David,  Shamseer Larissa,  Clarke Mike, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement Systematic reviews. 2015;4:1.
    
    

28. [28]. Liberati Alessandro,  Altman Douglas,  Tetzlaff Jennifer, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions Bmj. 2009;339.
    
    

29. [29].Higgins Julian PT,  Green Sally. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions;4. John Wiley & Sons 2011.
    
    

30. [30]. Campbell Mhairi, McKenzie Joanne E,  Sowden Amanda, et al. Synthesis without metaanalysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline bmj. 2020;368.
    
    

31. [31]. Crowther Mark,  Avenell Alison,  MacLennan Graeme,  Mowatt Graham. A further use for the Harvest plot: a novel method for the presentation of data synthesis Research Synthesis Methods. 2011;2:79–83.
    
    

32. [32].Day E., Copello A., Karia M., et al. Social network support for individuals receiving opiate substitution treatment and its association with treatment progress European Addiction Research. 2013;19:211–21.
    
    

33. [33].Feng N., Lin C., Hsieh J., Rou K., Li L.. Family Related Factors and Concurrent Heroin Use in Methadone Maintenance Treatment in China Substance Use & Misuse. 2018;53:1674–1680.
    
    

34. [34].Gogineni A., Stein M. D., Friedmann P. D.. Social relationships and intravenous drug use among methadone maintenance patients Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 2001;64:47–53.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0376-8716(00)00230-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11470340&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

35. [35].Hoang T. V., Ha T. T., Hoang T. M., et al. Impact of a methadone maintenance therapy pilot in Vietnam and its role in a scaled-up response Harm Reduction Journal. 2015;12:39.
    
    

36. [36].Hoang T., Nguyen H., Shiraishi R. W., et al. Factors associated with concurrent heroin use among patients on methadone maintenance treatment in Vietnam: A 24-month retro-spective analysis of a nationally representative sample International Journal of Drug Policy. 2018;55:113–120.
    
    

37. [37].Lin C., Wu Z., Detels R.. Family support, quality of life and concurrent substance use among methadone maintenance therapy clients in China Public Health. 2011;125:269–74.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21414646&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

38. [38].Shen L., Assanangkornchai S., Liu W., et al. Influence of social network on drug use among clients of methadone maintenance treatment centers in Kunming, China PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 2018;13:e0200105.
    
    

39. [39].Zhu Y., Evans E. A., Mooney L. J., et al. Correlates of Long-Term Opioid Abstinence After Randomization to Methadone Versus Buprenorphine/Naloxone in a Multi-Site Trial Journal Of Neuroimmune Pharmacology: The Official Journal Of The Society On NeuroImmune Pharmacology. 2018;09:09.
    
    

40. [40].Wasserman D. A., Stewart A. L., Delucchi K. L.. Social support and abstinence from opiates and cocaine during opioid maintenance treatment Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 2001;65:65– 75.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0376-8716(01)00151-X&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11714591&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

41. [41].Monico L. B., Gryczynski J., Mitchell S. G., Schwartz R. P., O’Grady K. E., Jaffe J. H.. Buprenorphine Treatment and 12-step Meeting Attendance: Conflicts, Compatibilities, and Patient Outcomes Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2015;57:89–95.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jsat.2015.05.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25986647&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

42. [42].Sarasvita R., Tonkin A., Utomo B., Ali R.. Predictive factors for treatment retention in methadone programs in Indonesia Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2012;42:239–46.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jsat.2011.07.009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21943812&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

43. [43].Torrens M., Castillo C., Perez-Sola V.. Retention in a low-threshold methadone maintenance program Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 1996;41:55–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0376-8716(96)01230-6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8793310&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996UR32600007&link_type=ISI) 

44. [44].Yang F., Lin P., Li Y., et al. Predictors of retention in community-based methadone maintenance treatment program in Pearl River Delta, China Harm Reduction Journal. 2013;10:3.
    
    

45. [45].Anton R. F., Hogan I., Jalali B., Riordan C. E., Kleber H. D.. Multiple family therapy and naltrexone in the treatment of opiate dependence Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 1981;8:157– 68.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0376-8716(81)90110-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7318681&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1981MU38100008&link_type=ISI) 

46. [46].Cerovecki V., Tiljak H., Ozvacic Adzic Z., Krizmaric M., Pregelj P., Kastelic A.. Risk factors for fatal outcome in patients with opioid dependence treated with methadone in a family medicine setting in Croatia Croatian Medical Journal. 2013;54:42–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3325/cmj.2013.54.42&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23444245&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

47. [47].Davila Torres Rena R.. Behavioral factors associated with retention of Hispanics in a methadone maintenance outpatient program Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2011;72:90.
    
    

48. [48].Grey C., Osborn E., Reznikoff M.. Psychosocial factors in outcome in two opiate addiction treatments Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1986;42:185–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/1097-4679(198601)42:1<185::AID-JCLP2270420132>3.0.CO;2-W&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3950006&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

49. [49]. Gu Jing,  Xu Huifang, Lau Joseph T. F., et al. Situation-specific factors predicting nonadherence to methadone maintenance treatment: a cross-sectional study using the case-crossover design in Guangzhou, China AIDS Care. 2014;26:S107–S112.
    
    

50. [50].Lee C. H., Wang T. J., Tang H. P., Liu Y. H., Bell J.. Familial expressed emotion among heroin addicts in methadone maintenance treatment: does it matter? Addictive Behaviors. 2015;45:39–44.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.01.014&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25638535&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

51. [51].Lundgren L. M., Sullivan L. M., Maina A. W., Schilling R. F.. Client factors associated with length of stay in methadone treatment among heroin users who inject drugs: quantitative analysis of state-level substance abuse treatment utilization data Journal of Addiction Medicine. 2007;1:26–32.
    
    

52. [52].Nguyen L. H., Nguyen H. T. T., Nguyen H. L. T., Tran B. X., Latkin C. A.. Adherence to methadone maintenance treatment and associated factors among patients in Vietnamese mountainside areas Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, & Policy. 2017;12:31.
    
    

53. [53]. Tang Songyuan. Factors associated with effectiveness of Methadone Maintenance Treatment in Yunnan province of China Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 2016;76:No Pagination Specified.
    
    

54. [54]. Smith Jennifer Loretta. Treatment outcome among methadone recipients: Influence of per-ceived social support and orientation towards social support Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 2002;63:551.
    
    

55. [55].Heinz A. J., Wu J., Witkiewitz K., Epstein D. H., Preston K. L.. Marriage and relationship closeness as predictors of cocaine and heroin use Addictive Behaviors. 2009;34:258–63.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.10.020&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19008050&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

56. [56].Mutasa H. C.. Risk factors associated with noncompliance with methadone substitution therapy (MST) and relapse among chronic opiate users in an Outer London community Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2001;35:97–107.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01826.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11442687&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

57. [57].Tran B. X., Nguyen L. H., Tran T. T., Latkin C. A.. Social and structural barriers for adherence to methadone maintenance treatment among Vietnamese opioid dependence patients PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 2018;13:e0190941.
    
    

58. [58].Lin H. C., Chen K. Y., Wang P. W., et al. Predictors for dropping-out from methadone maintenance therapy programs among heroin users in southern Taiwan Substance Use & Misuse. 2013;48:181–91.
    
    

59. [59].Scherbaum N., Kluwig J., Specka M., et al. Group psychotherapy for opiate addicts in methadone maintenance treatment - A controlled trial European Addiction Research. 2005;11:163–171.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16110222&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 

60. [60].Day E., Copello A., Seddon J. L., et al. A pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial of an adjunct brief social network intervention in opiate substitution treatment services BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18:8.
    
    

61. [61].Carroll K. M., Ball S. A., Nich C., et al. Targeting behavioral therapies to enhance naltrexone treatment of opioid dependence: efficacy of contingency management and significant other involvement Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001;58:755–61.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpsyc.58.8.755&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11483141&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170246900005&link_type=ISI) 

62. [62].Gu J., Lau J. T., Xu H., et al. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the relative efficacy of the addition of a psycho-social intervention to standard-of-care services in reducing attrition and improving attendance among first-time users of methadone maintenance treatment in China AIDS & Behavior. 2013;17:2002–10.
    
    

63. [63].Rothenberg J. L., Sullivan M. A., Church S. H., et al. Behavioral naltrexone therapy: an integrated treatment for opiate dependence Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;23:351–60.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0740-5472(02)00301-X&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12495797&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000180150500011&link_type=ISI) 

64. [64].Hikmayani N. H., Rahardjo S. S., Doewes M.. Correlates of dropout from community-based methadone maintenance treatment program in Indonesia Value in Health. 2012;15 (4):A85.
    
    

65. [65].Hojjat S. K., Rezaei M., Hatami S. E., Kohestani M., Norozi Khalili M.. The Effectiveness of Group Family Training About the Principles of Harm Reduction Approach on Marital Satisfaction of Spouses of Patients Under Methadone Maintenance Treatment Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2017;43:68–77.
    
    

66. [66].Catalano R. F., Haggerty K. P., Gainey R. R., Hoppe M. J.. Reducing parental risk factors for children’s substance misuse: preliminary outcomes with opiate-addicted parents Substance Use & Misuse. 1997;32:699–721.
    
    

67. [67].Catalano R. F., Gainey R. R., Fleming C. B., Haggerty K. P., Johnson N. O.. An experimental intervention with families of substance abusers: one-year follow-up of the focus on families project Addiction. 1999;94:241–54.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.9422418.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10396792&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000078574600010&link_type=ISI) 

68. [68].Fals-Stewart W., O’Farrell T. J.. Behavioral family counseling and naltrexone for male opioid-dependent patients Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 2003;71:432–42.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0022-006X.71.3.432&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12795568&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183032100002&link_type=ISI) 

69. [69].Fals-Stewart W., O’Farrell T. J., Birchler G. R.. Behavioral couples therapy for male methadone maintenance patients: Effects on drug-using behavior and relationship adjustment Behavior Therapy. 2001;32:391–411.
    
    

70. [70].Roozen H. G., Kerkhof A. J., Brink W.. Experiences with an outpatient relapse program (community reinforcement approach) combined with naltrexone in the treatment of opioid-dependence: effect on addictive behaviors and the predictive value of psychiatric comorbidity European Addiction Research. 2003;9:53–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1159/000068808&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12644730&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182016600001&link_type=ISI) 

71. [71]. Yandoli Dennis,  Eisler Ivan,  Robbins Claire,  Mulleady Geraldine,  Dare Christopher. A comparative study of family therapy in the treatment of opiate users in a London drug clinic Journal of Family Therapy. 2002;24:402–422.
    
    

72. [72].Kidorf M.. Mobilizing drug-free support and modifying social network ties using close network supports Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2018;42 (Supplement 1):292A.
    
    

73. [73].Ali Mir M,  Henke Rachel Mosher,  Mutter Ryan, et al. Family member opioid prescriptions and opioid use disorder Addictive behaviors. 2019;95:58–63.
    
    

74. [74]. Fotiou Anastasios,  Kanavou Eleftheria,  Richardson Clive,  Ploumpidis Dimitrios,  Kokkevi Anna. Misuse of prescription opioid analgesics among adolescents in Greece: The importance of peer use and past prescriptions Drugs: education, prevention and policy. 2014;21:357– 369.
    
    

75. [75].Zanis David A,  Coviello Donna. A case study of employment case management with chronically unemployed methadone maintained clients Journal of psychoactive drugs. 2001;33:67– 73.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11333003&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F20%2F2020.07.18.20156950.atom)