Clinic-based treatment for opioid dependence: a qualitative inquiry

Retention of opioid agonist treatment prescribers across New South Wales, Australia, 2001-2018: Implications for treatment systems and potential impact on client outcomes

BACKGROUND

There has been much research on the efficacy and effectiveness of opioid agonist treatment (OAT), but less on its implementation and sustainability. A challenge internationally has been recruiting and retaining prescribers. This paper aims to characterise the prescribers in terms of OAT prescribing behaviours.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study in New South Wales, Australia. Participants were 2199 OAT prescribers between 1 st August 2001-19th September 2018.We examined trends in initiation and cessation of OAT prescribers. Adjusted hazard ratios were calculated to estimate prescriber retention, adjusting for year of initiation, practice type, client load and treatment prescribed.

RESULTS

The rate of prescribers ceasing OAT prescribing has been increasing over time: a prescriber who initiated between 2016-2017 had over four times the risk of cessation compared with one who initiated before 2001, AHR: 4.77; [3.67-6.21]. The highest prescriber cessation rate was in prescribers who had prescribed for shorter time periods. The annual percentage of prescribers who ceased prescribing among those who prescribed for ≤5 years increased from 3% in 2001 to 20 % in 2017. By 2017 more prescribers were discontinuing prescribing than new prescribers were starting. Approximately 87 % (n = 25,167) of OAT clients were under the care of 20 % of OAT prescribers (n = 202); half had been prescribing OAT for 17+ years.

CONCLUSIONS

OAT prescribing is increasingly concentrated in a small group of mature prescribers, and new prescribers are not being retained. There is a need to identify and respond to the reasons that contribute to newer prescribers to cease prescribing and put in place strategies to increase retention and broaden the base of doctors involved in such prescribing.

A systematic review of patients' and providers' perspectives of medications for treatment of opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) include: 1) buprenorphine, 2) methadone, and 3) extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX). Research should investigate patients' and providers' perspectives of MOUD since they can influence prescription, retention, and recovery.

METHODS

This systematic review focused on patients' and providers' perceptions of MOUD. The review eligibility criteria included inclusion of the outcome of interest, in English, and involving persons ≥18 years. A PubMed database search yielded 1692 results; we included 152 articles in the final review.

RESULTS

There were 63 articles about buprenorphine, 115 articles about methadone, and 16 about naltrexone. Misinformation and stigma associated with MOUD were common patient themes. Providers reported lack of training and resources as barriers to MOUD.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that patients have significant misinformation regarding MOUD. Due to the severity of the opioid epidemic, research must consider the effects of patients' and providers' perspectives on treatment for OUD, including the effects on the type of MOUD prescribed, patient retention and adherence, and ultimately the number of patients treated for OUD, which will aid in curbing the opioid epidemic.

A mixed-method comparison of physician-reported beliefs about and barriers to treatment with medications for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Evidence demonstrates that medications for treating opioid use disorder (MOUD) -namely buprenorphine, methadone, and extended-release naltrexone-are effective at treating opioid use disorder (OUD) and reducing associated harms. However, MOUDs are heavily underutilized, largely due to the under-supply of providers trained and willing to prescribe the medications.

METHODS

To understand comparative beliefs about MOUD and barriers to MOUD, we conducted a mixed-methods study that involved focus group interviews and an online survey disseminated to a random group of licensed U.S. physicians, which oversampled physicians with a preexisting waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. Focus group results were analyzed using thematic analysis. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods.

RESULTS

Study findings suggest that physicians have higher perceptions of efficacy for methadone and buprenorphine than for extended-release naltrexone, including for patients with co-occurring mental health disorders. Insurance obstacles, such as prior authorization requirements, were the most commonly cited barrier to prescribing buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone. Regulatory barriers, such as the training required to obtain a federal waiver to prescribe buprenorphine, were not considered significant barriers by many physicians to prescribing buprenorphine and naltrexone in office-based settings. Nor did physicians perceive diversion to be a prominent barrier to prescribing buprenorphine. In focus groups, physicians identified financial, logistical, and workforce barriers-such as a lack of addiction treatment specialists-as additional barriers to prescribing medications to treat OUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional education is needed for physicians regarding the comparative efficacy of different OUD medications. Governmental policies should mandate full insurance coverage of and prohibit prior authorization requirements for OUD medications.

Stigma as a fundamental hindrance to the United States opioid overdose crisis response

Alexander Tsai and co-authors discuss the role of stigma in responses to the US opioid crisis.

Barriers and facilitators to office-based opioid agonist therapy prescribing and effective interventions to increase provider prescribing: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Opiate agonist therapy (OAT) prescribing rates by family physicians are low in the context of community-based, comprehensive primary care. Understanding the factors that support and/or inhibit OAT prescribing within primary care is needed. Our study objectives are to identify and synthesize documented barriers to, and facilitators of, primary care opioid agonist prescribing, and effective strategies to inform intervention planning and support increased primary care OAT prescribing.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will systematically search EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and gray literature in three domains: primary care providers, opioid agonist therapy, and opioid abuse. We will retain and assess primary studies reporting documented participation, or self-reported willingness to participate, in OAT prescribing; and/or at least one determinant of OAT prescribing; and/or strategies to address determinants of OAT prescribing from the perspective of primary care providers in comprehensive, community-based practice settings. There will be no restrictions on study design or publication date. Studies limited to specialty clinics with specialist prescribers, lacking extractable data, or in languages other than English or French will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform abstract review and data extraction independently. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. We will use a framework method of analysis to deductively code barriers and facilitators and to characterize effective strategies to support prescribing using a combined, modified a priori framework comprising the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

DISCUSSION

To date, no synthesis has been undertaken of the barriers and facilitators or effective interventions promoting OAT prescribing by primary care clinicians in community-based comprehensive care settings. Enacting change in physician behaviors, community-based programming, and health services is complex and best informed by using theoretical frameworks that allow the analysis of the available data to assist in designing and implementing interventions. In light of the current opioid crisis, increasing the capacity of primary care clinicians to provide OAT is an important strategy to curb morbidity and mortality from opioid use disorder.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD86835.

Integrating buprenorphine treatment into office-based practice: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability and demonstrated effectiveness of office-based buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT), the systematic examination of physicians' attitudes towards this new medical practice has been largely neglected.

OBJECTIVE

To identify facilitators and barriers to the potential or actual implementation of BMT by office-based medical providers.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using individual and group semi-structured interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three practicing office-based physicians in New England.

APPROACH

Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and entered into a qualitative software program. The transcripts were thematically coded using the constant comparative method by a multidisciplinary team.

RESULTS

Eighty percent of the physicians were white; 55% were women. The mean number of years since graduating medical school was 14 (SD = 10). The primary areas of clinical specialization were internal medicine (50%), infectious disease (20%), and addiction medicine (15%). Physicians identified physician, patient, and logistical factors that would either facilitate or serve as a barrier to their integration of BMT into clinical practice. Physician facilitators included promoting continuity of patient care, positive perceptions of BMT, and viewing BMT as a positive alternative to methadone maintenance. Physician barriers included competing activities, lack of interest, and lack of expertise in addiction treatment. Physicians' perceptions of patient-related barriers included concerns about confidentiality and cost, and low motivation for treatment. Perceived logistical barriers included lack of remuneration for BMT, limited ancillary support for physicians, not enough time, and a perceived low prevalence of opioid dependence in physicians' practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing physicians' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to BMT is crucial to supporting the further expansion of BMT into primary care and office-based practices.

Pathways of Substance Users Linking (Or Not) With Treatment

This qualitative paper describes different pathways substance users experience as they decide whether to link to treatment or not after being assessed in a centralized intake unit in a Midwestern city. The narratives of 16 participants who did not link with treatment were compared with the narratives of 20 participants who did. Narratives from both groups described similar themes that were experienced differently. Nonlinkers were characterized by pretreatment abstinence, a negative experience with previous treatment, little previous engagement in a treatment career, and meaningful social support coming from AA. Linkers were more likely to continue using drugs before treatment entry, yet they described more readiness for treatment and were more engaged in a treatment career. The treatment careers approach provides a broader framework for understanding linkage versus nonlinkage to treatment.