Lewei Allison Lin1,2, Hannah K Knudsen3. 1. Addiction Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan leweil@med.umich.edu. 2. Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Behavioral Science and Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although there is a tremendous need to increase the use of buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder in rural areas, little is known about current rural/urban differences in treatment practices. We aimed to examine physician characteristics, treatment practices, and concordance with treatment guidelines among buprenorphine prescribers across different locations of practice. METHODS: A national random sample of buprenorphine physician prescribers was surveyed (n = 1,174, response rate = 33%) from July 2014 to January 2017. Analyses examined buprenorphine treatment across locations of practice (categorized as nonmetropolitan, small metropolitan, and large metropolitan). RESULTS: Among buprenorphine prescribers surveyed, 11.2% (n = 132) practiced in nonmetropolitan/rural areas, 32.5% (n = 382) in small metropolitan areas, and 56.2% (n = 660) in large metropolitan areas. Buprenorphine prescribers in nonmetropolitan areas were much more likely to be primary care physicians, accept Medicaid, and less likely to work in an individual practice. Overall, buprenorphine prescribers across the rural/urban continuum were similar in many of their treatment practices, including induction, frequency of visits, dosing, and use of psychosocial treatment, which were generally consistent with buprenorphine treatment recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences in characteristics of buprenorphine prescribers in nonmetropolitan areas compared with more urban areas, including the fact that the majority of nonmetropolitan physicians are primary care physicians. Although treatment access in rural areas is an ongoing challenge, buprenorphine treatment practices are similar. Understanding buprenorphine prescribers and their treatment practices may help inform tailored strategies to address treatment needs in different locations.
PURPOSE: Although there is a tremendous need to increase the use of buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder in rural areas, little is known about current rural/urban differences in treatment practices. We aimed to examine physician characteristics, treatment practices, and concordance with treatment guidelines among buprenorphine prescribers across different locations of practice. METHODS: A national random sample of buprenorphine physician prescribers was surveyed (n = 1,174, response rate = 33%) from July 2014 to January 2017. Analyses examined buprenorphine treatment across locations of practice (categorized as nonmetropolitan, small metropolitan, and large metropolitan). RESULTS: Among buprenorphine prescribers surveyed, 11.2% (n = 132) practiced in nonmetropolitan/rural areas, 32.5% (n = 382) in small metropolitan areas, and 56.2% (n = 660) in large metropolitan areas. Buprenorphine prescribers in nonmetropolitan areas were much more likely to be primary care physicians, accept Medicaid, and less likely to work in an individual practice. Overall, buprenorphine prescribers across the rural/urban continuum were similar in many of their treatment practices, including induction, frequency of visits, dosing, and use of psychosocial treatment, which were generally consistent with buprenorphine treatment recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences in characteristics of buprenorphine prescribers in nonmetropolitan areas compared with more urban areas, including the fact that the majority of nonmetropolitan physicians are primary care physicians. Although treatment access in rural areas is an ongoing challenge, buprenorphine treatment practices are similar. Understanding buprenorphine prescribers and their treatment practices may help inform tailored strategies to address treatment needs in different locations.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Hannah K Knudsen; Michelle R Lofwall; Sharon L Walsh; Jennifer R Havens; Jamie L Studts Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Lewei Allison Lin; Michelle R Lofwall; Sharon L Walsh; Adam J Gordon; Hannah K Knudsen Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Kimberly Johnson; Chris Jones; Wilson Compton; Grant Baldwin; Jennifer Fan; Jonathan Mermin; Jean Bennett Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Megan S Schuler; Beth Ann Griffin; Magdalena Cerdá; Emma E McGinty; Elizabeth A Stuart Journal: Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol Date: 2020-11-12
Authors: Benjamin P Linas; Alexandra Savinkina; R W M A Madushani; Jianing Wang; Golnaz Eftekhari Yazdi; Avik Chatterjee; Alexander Y Walley; Jake R Morgan; Rachel L Epstein; Sabrina A Assoumou; Sean M Murphy; Bruce R Schackman; Stavroula A Chrysanthopoulou; Laura F White; Joshua A Barocas Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-02-01
Authors: A Taylor Kelley; Marcela C Smid; Jacob D Baylis; Elizabeth Charron; Amy E Binns-Calvey; Shayla Archer; Saul J Weiner; Lori Jo Begaye; Gerald Cochran Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2021-06-25
Authors: Michael L Parchman; Brooke Ike; Katherine P Osterhage; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Kari A Stephens; Sarah Sutton Journal: J Clin Transl Sci Date: 2020-01-10