RESUMEN
Purpose: Negative perceptions around medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) amongst the public could deter patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) from engaging with MOUD. Thus, we evaluated whether a brief intervention could improve preferences for MOUD in people who may or may not use opioids. Methods: We employed a pre-post design to assess the effect of a brief educational intervention on preferences for methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, and non-medication treatment in an online sample of US adults stratified by race, who may or may not use opioids. Respondents ranked their preferences in OUD treatment before and after watching four one-minute educational videos about treatment options. Changes in treatment preferences were analyzed using Bhapkar's test and post hoc McNemar's tests. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) assessed factors associated with preference between treatments. Results: The sample had 530 responses. 194 identified as White, 173 Black, 163 Latinx. Treatment preferences changed significantly towards MOUD (p<.001). This effect was driven by changes toward buprenorphine (OR=2.38; p<.001) and away from non-medication treatment (OR=0.20; p<.001). There was no significant difference in effect by race/ethnicity. People with lower opioid familiarity were significantly more likely to change their preferences towards MOUD following the intervention. Conclusion: Respondent preferences for MOUD increased following the intervention suggesting that brief educational interventions can change treatment preferences towards MOUD. These findings offer insights into perceptions of OUD treatment in a racially stratified sample and serve as a foundation for future educational materials that target MOUD preferences in the general public.
RESUMEN
Objectives: Stigma and lack of knowledge are barriers to clinicians when caring for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). In 2018, only about 15 out of 180 American medical schools had comprehensive addiction programs. The AAMC reports that institutions are increasingly incorporating competencies to address the OUD and opioid epidemic. There have been few evaluated curriculums focused on reducing stigmatizing attitudes. This study evaluated whether a 4-hour case-based curriculum focused on improving stigmatizing attitudes toward patients with OUD could reduce medical student perceptions around viewing addiction as a punitive condition and other substitution-based misconceptions around opioid agonist-based medication. Methods: Medical students completed a 4-hour curricular workshop which included learning objectives focusing on barriers to healthcare/stigmatizing attitudes, effective behavioral therapy options, and appropriate use of opioid medications. We measured changes in knowledge and attitudes using validated scales on stigma. Non-parametric repeated measure tests determined statistically significant differences between pre and post assessments between OUD related perceptions and a control condition (diabetes). Results: Of 135 eligible participants, 99 (76%) students completed both pre- and post-surveys. Mean scores across knowledge questions improved (60%-81%, P < .001) and stigmatizing attitudes regarding perceived violence of people with OUD decreased (2.04-1.82, P = .016). There was significant improvement in mean scores for OUD-related opinions including desire to work with and effectively treat patients with OUD (3.58-3.88, P < .001) while no significant concurrent change was observed in mean opinion scores of a non-OUD comparator, diabetes (3.88-3.97, P = .201). Conclusions: Results indicate that the workshop was associated with measurable changes in knowledge and attitudinal forms of OUD stigma. With recent policy changes eliminating the X-waiver, healthcare institutions are eager to design curriculum around OUD management and treatment. This study provides a blueprint for an effective curriculum that improves clinician knowledge and reduces stigmatizing attitudes.
RESUMEN
Purpose: About 5-8 million US patients take long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. In the context of policies and guidelines instituted to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing, abrupt discontinuations in opioid prescriptions have increased and many primary care clinics will not prescribe opioids for new patients, reducing access to care. This may result in uncontrolled pain and other negative outcomes, such as transition to illicit opioids. The objective of this study was to generate policy, intervention, and research recommendations to improve access to care for these patients. Participants and Methods: We conducted a RAND/UCLA Modified Delphi, consisting of workshops, background videos and reading materials, and moderated web-based panel discussions held September 2020-January 2021. The panel consisted of 24 individuals from across Michigan, identified via expert nomination and snowball recruitment, including clinical providers, health science researchers, state-level policymakers and regulators, care coordination experts, patient advocates, payor representatives, and community and public health experts. The panel proposed intervention, policy, and research recommendations, scored the feasibility, impact, and importance of each on a 9-point scale, and ranked all recommendations by implementation priority. Results: The panel produced 11 final recommendations across three themes: reimbursement reform, provider education, and reducing racial inequities in care. The 3 reimbursement-focused recommendations were highest ranked (theme average = 4.2/11), including the two top-ranked recommendations: increasing reimbursement for time needed to treat complex chronic pain (ranked #1/11) and bundling payment for multimodal pain care (#2/11). Four provider education recommendations ranked slightly lower (theme average = 6.2/11) and included clarifying the spectrum of opioid dependence and training providers on multimodal treatments. Four recommendations addressed racial inequities (theme average = 7.2/11), such as standardizing pain management protocols to reduce treatment disparities. Conclusion: Panelists indicated reimbursement should incentivize traditionally lower-paying evidence-based pain care, but multiple strategies may be needed to meaningfully expand access.
RESUMEN
Purpose: Despite being one of the most common medical complaints, chronic pain is difficult to manage due to ineffective communication between providers and patients and time restraints during appointments. Patient-centered questionnaires have the potential to optimize communication by assessing a patient's pain history, prior treatments, and associated comorbidities to develop an effective treatment plan. This study aimed to analyze the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-visit clinical questionnaire aimed at improving communication and pain care. Patients and Methods: The "Pain Profile" questionnaire was piloted across two specialty pain clinics in a large academic medical center. Patient and provider surveys were conducted with patients who completed the Pain Profile questionnaire and providers who use it in practice. Surveys consisted of multiple-choice and open-ended questions regarding the helpfulness, usability, and implementation of the questionnaire. Descriptive analyses of patient and provider surveys were conducted. Qualitative data were analyzed using matrix framework-based coding. Results: A total of 171 patients and 32 clinical providers completed the feasibility and acceptability surveys. 77% of patients (N= 131) found the Pain Profile helpful in communicating their pain experiences and 69% of providers (N= 22) found it helpful in guiding clinical decisions. The section that assessed the impact of pain was rated most helpful by patients (4/5) while the open-ended section asking patients to describe their pain history was rated least helpful by patients and providers (3.7/5 and 4.1/5, respectively). Both patients and providers provided suggestions to future iterations of the Pain Profile, including the addition of opioid risk and mental health screening tools. Conclusion: The Pain Profile questionnaire was feasible and acceptable in a pilot study at a large academic site. Future testing in a large-scale, fully powered trial is needed to assess the effectiveness of the Pain Profile in optimizing communication and pain management.
RESUMEN
ABSTRACT: Many primary care clinics are resistant to accept new patients taking prescription opioids for chronic pain. It is unclear how much of this practice is specific to individuals who may be perceived to have aberrant opioid use. This study sought to determine whether clinics are more or less willing to accept and prescribe opioids to patients depending on whether their history is more or less suggestive of aberrant opioid use by conducting an audit survey of primary care clinics in 9 states from May to July 2019. Simulated patients taking opioids for chronic pain called each clinic twice, giving one of 2 scenarios for needing a new provider: their previous physician had either (1) retired or (2) stopped prescribing opioids for unspecified reasons. Clinic willingness to continue prescribing opioids and accept the patient for general primary care were assessed. Of 452 clinics responding to both scenarios (904 calls), 193 (43%) said their providers would not prescribe opioids in either scenario, 146 (32%) said their providers might prescribe in both, and 113 (25%) responded differently to each scenario. Clinics responding differently had greater odds (odds ratio = 1.83 confidence interval [1.23-2.76]) of willingness to prescribe when the previous doctor retired than when the doctor had stopped prescribing. These findings suggest that primary care access is limited for patients taking opioids for chronic pain, and differentially further reduced for patients whose histories are suggestive of aberrant use. This denial of care could lead to unintended harms such as worsened pain or conversion to illicit substances.
