Survey of Barriers and Facilitators to Prescribing Buprenorphine and Clinician Perceptions on the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 Waiver.

Importance: As opioid-related deaths continue to climb, methods to reduce barriers to prescribing buprenorphine for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) are needed. Recent conversations by state and federal authorities targeting low-threshold buprenorphine aim to reduce some barriers to prescribing buprenorphine; however, what remains unclear is whether removal of the requirement to obtain a waiver for prescribing buprenorphine through the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (an X-waiver) will be enough to increase access to buprenorphine. Objective: To assess barriers and facilitators of obtaining an X-waiver and prescribing buprenorphine. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-method survey study was conducted between September and December 2020; 607 office-based Texas clinicians were surveyed after they attended a buprenorphine X-waiver training course. All attendees between March 2, 2019, and February 28, 2020, were eligible to receive this survey; 126 responses were received (20% response rate: 81 physicians, 37 nurse practitioners, and 8 physician assistants). Data analysis was performed October 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surveys measured the extent to which clinicians experienced 9 previously identified barriers during the waiver process and in prescribing buprenorphine. The survey included open-ended items assessing facilitating factors to obtaining a waiver and to prescribing buprenorphine for OUD. The barriers were analyzed using χ2 tests of homogeneity. Qualitative data were analyzed using a constant comparative method. Results: Among 126 clinicians who responded, 61 (48.4%) had received an X-waiver; of these waivered clinicians, 22 (36%) were prescribing buprenorphine and 39 (64%) were not. "Complexity of X-waiver process," "Perceived lack of professional support and referral network," and "Getting started" were significantly different barriers among waivered and nonwaivered clinicians. Significant differences in barriers experienced between prescribers and nonprescribers were "Getting started" and "Accessing reimbursement for treatment." The most frequently mentioned facilitators involved changes to the waiver training and the need for networks connecting experienced clinicians with those in the initial stages of readiness for prescribing buprenorphine for OUD. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study's results contribute new understanding of facilitators to obtaining the X-waiver and to prescribing buprenorphine. Furthermore, these findings suggest that to increase access to compassionate evidence-based treatment for OUD, clinicians need ongoing support and mentorship from experienced and knowledgeable clinicians. Interventions aimed at improving access to buprenorphine should focus on facilitating such networks to increase the number of clinicians who obtain an X-waiver and prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.

Qualitative Assessment of Clerkship Students' Perspectives of the Topics of Pain and Addiction in their Preclinical Curriculum.

OBJECTIVE: A majority of physicians feel poorly trained in the treatment of chronic pain and addiction. As such, it is critical that medical students receive appropriate education in both pain management and addiction. The purpose of this study was to assess the pre-clinical curriculum in pain medicine and addiction from the perspective of students after they had completed their pre-clinical training and to assess what they perceived as the strengths and weaknesses of their training. METHODS: The authors conducted focused interviews among clinical medical students who had completed at least 6 months of clerkships. The interviews targeted the students' retrospective opinions about the pre-clinical curriculum and their preparedness for clinical encounters with either pain or addiction-related issues during their rotations. Coders thematically analyzed the de-identified interview transcripts, with consensus reached through discussion and code modification. RESULTS: Themes that emerged through the focused interviews included: fragmented curricular structure (and insufficient time) for pain and addiction medicine, not enough specific treatment strategies for pain or addiction, especially for complex clinical scenarios, and lack of a trained work-force to provide guidance in the management of pain and addiction. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of gathering student perspectives to inform changes to improve the pre-clinical curriculum in pain and addiction medicine. Students identified multiple areas for improvement at the pre-clerkship level, which have informed updates to the curriculum. More research is needed to determine if curricular changes based on student feedback lead to improved learning outcomes.