Abstract
Background Methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone®) have been discussed and compared extensively in the medical literature as effective treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD). While the evidence basis for the use of these medications is very favorable, less is known about the perceptions of these medications within the general public.
Objective This study aimed to use social media, specifically Twitter, to assess the public perception of these medications, and to compare the discussion content between each medication based on theme, subtheme, and sentiment.
Methods We conducted a mixed methods descriptive study analyzing individual microposts (“tweets”) that mentioned “methadone” or “suboxone”. We then categorized these tweets into themes and subthemes, as well as by sentiment and personal experience, and compared the information posted about these two medications, including in tweets that mentioned both medications.
Results We analyzed 900 tweets, most of which related to access (13.8% for methadone; 12.9% for suboxone®), stigma (15.3%; 14.0%), and OUD treatment (11.5%; 5.4%). Only a small proportion of tweets (16.4% for suboxone® and 9.3% for methadone) expressed positive sentiments about the medications, with few tweets describing personal experiences. Tweets mentioning both medications primarily discussed MOUD in general, rather than comparing the two medications directly.
Conclusions Twitter content about methadone and suboxone are similar, with the same major themes and similar sub-themes. Despite the proven effectiveness of these medications, there was little dialogue related to their benefits or efficacy in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Perceptions of these medications may contribute to their underutilization in combatting opioid use disorder.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported in part by NIDA of the NIH under award number R01DA046619. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study has been determined to fall under Exemption Category 4 by Emory University IRB since all data used is publicly available.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
This data set will not be publicly shared in order to protect the identities of the original posters.
Abbreviations
- API
- application programming interface
- ED
- emergency department
- IAA
- inter-annotator agreements
- MOUD
- medications for opioid use disorder
- OUD
- opioid use disorder
