ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the differences in buprenorphine prescribers from a county level in the state of Texas by comparing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Buprenorphine Practitioner Locator to the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Controlled Substance Act (CSA) database. METHODS: County-level counts of buprenorphine prescribers were calculated from both the publicly available SAMHSA buprenorphine practitioner locator list and the DEA CSA database. These were then used to estimate the number of providers per 100,000 residents in each county. Regional variation in access to buprenorphine was compared descriptively across the state using poverty data from the US Census and county-level demography from the Texas Demographic Center. RESULTS: This study found 68.8% more X-waivered providers on the DEA CSA database (n = 2,622) with at least one provider reported in 125 of 144 counties in the state (49.2%) compared to the SAMHSA Buprenorphine Practitioner Locator (n = 1,553) with at least one provider reported in 103 counties (40.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a complete public registry of buprenorphine prescribers can inhibit the ability of patients to identify a convenient treatment. More work is needed to quantify the gap between treatment capacity and treatment need.
Subject(s)
Buprenorphine , Opioid-Related Disorders , Buprenorphine/therapeutic use , Drug Prescriptions , Humans , Opiate Substitution Treatment , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Texas , United StatesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess pharmacists' practices when counseling patients on their prescription medications, and their preferences for training. METHODS: Five focus group discussions of community pharmacists (n=45, with seven to eleven participants in each group) were conducted in a major metropolitan city in the southern United States. Participants were recruited via email using a list of community pharmacists provided by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. All focus group discussions were structured using a moderator guide consisting of both discrete and open-ended questions. Qualitative analysis software was used to analyze the data with a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The participants in this study had a high self-efficacy regarding their ability to counsel on both new and opioid prescriptions. Many pharmacists experienced the same barriers to counseling and agreed on the components of counseling. However, the themes that emerged showed that the participants exhibited only a partial understanding of the components of counseling. The themes that emerged in the thematic analysis were perceived confidence and discordant counseling practices, inadequate infrastructure, lack of comprehensive counseling, inconsistent use of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), and pharmacists' desired training/assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists are in a unique position to help combat the opioid crisis; however, there has been very little research on the pharmacist-patient interaction in this context. With policy changes, such as the PDMP mandate, going into effect across the country, it is important to capitalize on the potential community pharmacists have in ameliorating the opioid crisis in the United States.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess pharmacists' practices when counseling patients on their prescription medications, and their preferences for training. METHODS: Five focus group discussions of community pharmacists (n=45, with seven to eleven participants in each group) were conducted in a major metropolitan city in the southern United States. Participants were recruited via email using a list of community pharmacists provided by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. All focus group discussions were structured using a moderator guide consisting of both discrete and open-ended questions. Qualitative analysis software was used to analyze the data with a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The participants in this study had a high self-efficacy regarding their ability to counsel on both new and opioid prescriptions. Many pharmacists experienced the same barriers to counseling and agreed on the components o counseling. However, the themes that emerged showed that the participants exhibited only a partial understanding of the components of counseling. The themes that emerged in the thematic analysis were perceived confidence and discordant counseling practices, inadequate infrastructure, lack of comprehensive counseling, inconsistent use of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), and pharmacists' desired training/assistance. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists are in a unique position to help combat the opioid crisis; however, there has been very little research on the pharmacist-patient interaction in this context. With policy changes, such as the PDMP mandate, going into effect across the country, it is important to capitalize on the potential community pharmacists have in ameliorating the opioid crisis in the United States
No disponible