Review: Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms among patients of opioid agonist treatment programmes in Ukraine during wartime {under peer review}
Reviewer 2: Kateryna Bikir
Completed: 18-08-2025 23:03
Recommendation: Accept Submission
|
|
Yes |
No |
N/A |
|
Is the research question clearly defined? |
+ |
|
|
|
Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently detailed? |
+ |
|
|
|
Is the data analysis robust and replicable? |
+ |
|
|
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
+ |
|
|
|
Is the manuscript well organised and clearly written? |
+ |
|
|
|
Are tables, figures, and supplementary material informative and necessary? |
+ |
|
|
|
Is the abstract an accurate summary of the study? |
+ |
|
|
|
Does the manuscript contribute meaningfully to the field? |
+ |
|
|
|
Is it relevant to the field of mental health or related disciplines that are connected to the scope of the Journal? |
+ |
|
|
|
Are ethical approvals and participant consents adequately described? |
+ |
|
|
|
Have competing interests, funding, and data availability been transparently declared? |
+ |
|
|
Comments for the authors:
The manuscript presents a timely and relevant investigation into the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms among patients receiving Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine. The topic is of significant importance in the psychological and addiction medicine fields, particularly given the unique stressors and trauma exposure associated with armed conflict.
The study contributes meaningfully to the discourse on mental health and substance use treatment in conflict zones. By focusing on Ukraine, the authors offer a rare and valuable perspective on how war-related stressors intersect with opioid use disorder and treatment outcomes.
The manuscript is well-organized and clearly written. The rationale, methodology, and conclusions are logically presented and supported by data.
The explanation for the substitution of Kyiv with Vinnytsia due to staff overload is reasonable and well-articulated. This transparency strengthens the credibility of the study.
There is a discrepancy in the reported gender distribution. The body of the article states: “Among study participants (95 males and 889 females),” while Tables 1–3 show the opposite: 95 females and 889 males. This inconsistency should be corrected to ensure clarity and accuracy.
While the study is robust, it would benefit from the inclusion of additional demographic and clinical characteristics commonly reported in similar research. For example, age, marital status, employment status, duration in treatment, mean percentage of opioid-positive drug screens, total number of opioid screens prior to and during study enrollment
These variables are routinely included in comparable studies, such as:
Rosic et al. (2025), PLOS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314296
Yang et al. (2025), Pain Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnaf011
Including these would enhance the study’s comparability and depth.
The manuscript’s conclusions are well-supported by the data and offer important insights into the mental health challenges faced by OAT patients in wartime. With minor revisions to address data consistency and expand demographic reporting, the article will make a strong contribution to the literature on addiction treatment and trauma-informed care in conflict settings.