Impact of Perceived Access and Treatment Knowledge on Medication Preferences for Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) are effective, but most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive treatment. Prior research has explored patients' structural barriers to access and perceptions of MOUD. Little research has considered treatment knowledge and perceptions outside of the patient population. Members of the public without OUD themselves (eg, family, friends) can significantly influence treatment decisions of persons with OUD. Considering these gaps, we conducted an original survey with a diverse sample of US adults to explore knowledge and preferences toward OUD treatments. METHODS: We conducted an online survey with 1505 White, Black, and Latino/a Americans including a small percentage (8.5%) with self-reported lifetime OUD. The survey used vignettes to describe hypothetical patients with OUD, provide basic treatment information (ie, methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, nonmedication treatment), and then assessed treatment preferences. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between covariates of interest (eg, perceived access, knowledge, demographics) and preference for MOUD versus nonmedication treatment. RESULTS: There were 523 White, 502 Black, and 480 Latino/a respondents. Across racial/ethnic subsamples, respondents had the greatest knowledge of nonmedication treatments, with Black (72.7%) and Latino/a (70.2%) respondents having significantly greater knowledge compared to White respondents (61.8%). However, after viewing the vignette, a greater proportion of respondents chose methadone (35.8%) or buprenorphine (34.8%) as their first-choice treatment for hypothetical patients. Multivariable logistic regression suggested that among Black respondents, those with knowledge of nonmedication treatment were more likely to choose MOUD than those without knowledge (odds ratio = 2.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.34-4.34). Perceived treatment access did not affect treatment choice. CONCLUSIONS: Across racial groups, knowledge and perceived access to nonmedication treatment was greater than for MOUD, but many still selected MOUD as a first-choice treatment. Significant findings emphasized the importance of treatment knowledge around decision-making, highlighting opportunities for tailored education efforts to improve uptake of evidence-based treatment.

The effect of a pilot brief educational intervention on preferences regarding treatments for opioid use disorder.

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.

Perceptions around medications for opioid use disorder among a diverse sample of U.S. adults.

INTRODUCTION: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) including methadone (MMT), buprenorphine (BUP), and naltrexone (NTX) are safe and effective. However, there are significant negative perceptions surrounding MOUD, creating barriers to uptake. While research on MOUD stigma has largely focused on provider and patient experiences, fewer studies have explored MOUD perceptions among the general public. Given that MOUD stigma expressed by social ties surrounding individuals with OUD can influence treatment choices, we assessed MOUD perceptions among U.S. adults to determine how beliefs impacted treatment preference. We further explored how MOUD perceptions may be amplified among racialized groups with histories of experiencing drug-related discrimination. METHODS: The study collected survey data from a diverse sample of U.S. adults (n = 1508) between October 2020 and January 2021. The survey measured knowledge of MOUD and non-medication treatments, relative agreement with common MOUD perceptions, and treatment preferences. Multinomial logistic regression analysis tested associations with treatment preference, stratified by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Descriptive results indicated that across groups, many respondents (66.8 %) had knowledge of MOUD, but believed MOUD was a "substitute" for opioids and had some degree of concern about misuse. Multivariable results showed knowledge of non-medication treatments was positively associated with MOUD preference among White (MMT OR = 3.16, 95 % CI = 1.35-7.39; BUP OR = 2.69, CI = 1.11-6.47), Black (MMT OR = 3.91, CI = 1.58-9.69), and Latino/a (MMT OR = 5.12, CI = 1.99-13.2; BUP OR = 3.85, CI = 1.5-9.87; NTX OR = 4.51, CI = 1.44-14.06) respondents. Among White respondents, we identified positive associations between MOUD experience and buprenorphine preference (OR = 4.33, CI = 1.17-16.06); non-medication treatment experience and preference for buprenorphine (OR = 2.86, CI = 1.03-7.94) and naltrexone (OR = 3.17, CI = 1.08-9.28). Concerns around misuse of methadone were negatively associated with methadone preference among White (OR = 0.65, CI = 0.43-0.98) and Latino/a (OR = 0.49, CI = 0.34-0.7), and concerns around misuse of buprenorphine was negatively associated with preference for MOUD among White (MMT OR = 0.62, CI = 0.39-0.99; BUP OR = 0.48, CI = 0.3-0.77; NTX OR = 0.6, CI = 0.36-0.99) and Latino/a (BUP OR = 0.59, CI = 0.39-0.89) respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis offers critical insights into treatment perceptions beyond the patient population, finding that negative beliefs around MOUD are common and negatively associated with preferences for medication-based treatment. These findings highlight implications for public support of evidence-based treatment and lay the groundwork for future interventions addressing public stigma toward MOUD.

Improving Medical Student Knowledge and Reducing Stigmatizing Attitudes Toward Treating Patients With Opioid Use Disorder.

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.

Feasibility and Acceptability of the Pain Profile, a Clinical Questionnaire Aimed at Improving Pain Care.

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.

Opioid Policy and Chronic Pain Treatment Access Experiences: A Multi-Stakeholder Qualitative Analysis and Conceptual Model.

PURPOSE: Patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for pain have difficulty accessing primary care clinicians who are willing to prescribe opioids or provide multimodal pain treatment. Recent treatment guidelines and statewide policies aimed at reducing inappropriate prescribing may exacerbate these access issues, but further research is needed on this issue. This study aimed to understand barriers to primary care access and multimodal treatment for chronic pain from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with adult patients with chronic pain, primary care clinicians, and clinic office staff in Michigan. Interview questions covered stakeholder experiences with prescription opioids, opioid-related policies, and access to care for chronic pain. Interviews were coded using inductive and deductive methods for thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 25 interviews were conducted (15 patients, 7 primary care clinicians, and 3 office staff). Barriers to treatment access were attributed to six themes: (1) reduced clinic willingness to manage prescribed opioids for new patients; (2) lack of time and reimbursement for quality opioid-related care; (3) paucity of multimodal care and coordination between providers; (4) fear of liability and use of new guidelines to justify not prescribing opioids; (5) delayed prescription receipt due to prior authorization and pharmacy issues; and (6) poor availability of effective non-opioid treatments. CONCLUSION: Issues of policy, logistics, and clinic-level resources converge to disrupt treatment access for patients with chronic pain, as many clinics both do not offer multimodal pain care and are unwilling to prescribe LTOT. The resulting conceptual model can inform the development of policy interventions to help mitigate these access barriers.

Identifying individuals with opioid use disorder: Validity of International Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes for opioid use, dependence and abuse.

BACKGROUND: Policy evaluations and health system interventions often utilize International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes of opioid use, dependence, and abuse to identify individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and assess receipt of evidence-based treatments. However, ICD codes may not map directly onto the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5) OUD criteria. This study investigates the positive predictive value of ICD codes in identifying patients with OUD. METHODS: We conducted a clinical chart review on a national sample of 520 Veterans assigned ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse from 2012 to 2017. We extracted evidence of DSM-5 OUD criteria and opioid misuse from clinical documentation in the month preceding and three months following initial ICD code listing, and categorized patients into: 1) high likelihood of OUD, 2) limited aberrant opioid use, 3) prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 4) insufficient information. Positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of individuals with these ICD codes meeting high likelihood of OUD criteria upon chart review. RESULTS: Only 57.7 % of patients were categorized as high likelihood of OUD; 16.5 % were categorized as limited aberrant opioid use, 18.9 % prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 6.9 % insufficient information. CONCLUSIONS: Patients assigned ICD codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse often lack documentation of meeting OUD criteria. Many receive long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain without evidence of misuse. Robust methods of identifying individuals with OUD are crucial to improving access to clinically appropriate treatment.

Assessing reasons for decreased primary care access for individuals on prescribed opioids: an audit study.

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.

Assessing Medical Student Interest in Training About Medications for Opioid Use Disorder: A Pilot Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Educating medical students about buprenorphine may lessen barriers to providing treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) by addressing stigma, removing the need to complete training while practicing, and normalizing it as a pharmacological option. We conducted a needs assessment to measure student interest in buprenorphine waiver training and pilot tested an online course with an in-person discussion for feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: All 2019 graduating students were surveyed to assess interest in completing buprenorphine waiver training and understand in which format they preferred to receive the training. Interested students received information about a free online buprenorphine waiver course and an optional in-person case discussion with a faculty member. Baseline and follow-up surveys were used to assess the intervention. RESULTS: Out of 228 students contacted, 173 (75.9%) responded to at least 1 survey. Of the 228, 62 (27.2%) responded to the initial survey asking students about receiving buprenorphine waiver training. The 166 non-responding students were sent a second survey, and 111 (66.9%) students responded. Of those 111, 29 (26.1%) indicated they forgot to respond to the first survey, and 24 (21.6%) did not see the survey. Of the 62 interested students, 41 students (66.1%) wanted a combination of online and in-person training. Of the 62, 30 (48.4%) interested students completed the online course and 10 (16.1%) attended the case discussion. While not significantly different, a higher proportion of students (88.9%) indicated being likely to prescribe buprenorphine after attending the case discussion than after completing the online course only (69.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This assessment suggested that most of the medical students are willing to complete a buprenorphine waiver course. Feedback indicated an in-person component could increase future prescribing more than an online-only curriculum, and additional advertising could result in higher participation.