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.
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.
Authors: David A Fiellin; Michael V Pantalon; Marek C Chawarski; Brent A Moore; Lynn E Sullivan; Patrick G O'Connor; Richard S Schottenfeld Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bridget A Martell; Patrick G O'Connor; Robert D Kerns; William C Becker; Knashawn H Morales; Thomas R Kosten; David A Fiellin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-01-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David A Fiellin; Michael V Pantalon; Juliana P Pakes; Patrick G O'Connor; Marek Chawarski; Richard S Schottenfeld Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2002 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Sharon J Parish; Megha Ramaswamy; Melissa R Stein; Elizabeth K Kachur; Julia H Arnsten Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Cheryl Teruya; Robert P Schwartz; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Albert L Hasson; Christie Thomas; Samantha H Buoncristiani; Yih-Ing Hser; Katharina Wiest; Allan J Cohen; Naomi Glick; Petra Jacobs; Paul McLaughlin; Walter Ling Journal: J Psychoactive Drugs Date: 2014 Nov-Dec
Authors: Adam J Gordon; Hillary V Kunins; Darius A Rastegar; Jeanette M Tetrault; Alexander Y Walley Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Paul J Joudrey; Benjamin J Oldfield; Kimberly A Yonkers; Patrick G O'Connor; Gretchen Berland; E Jennifer Edelman Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Elizabeth E Krans; Debra Bogen; Gale Richardson; Seo Young Park; Shannon L Dunn; Nancy Day Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Andrea K Finlay; Jessie J Wong; Laura S Ellerbe; Anna Rubinsky; Shalini Gupta; Thomas R Bowe; Eric M Schmidt; Christine Timko; Jennifer L Burden; Alex H S Harris Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Andrea K Finlay; Ingrid A Binswanger; Christine Timko; David Smelson; Matthew A Stimmel; Mengfei Yu; Tom Bowe; Alex H S Harris Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2018-10-02