Elizabeth C Saunders1, Sarah K Moore2, Olivia Walsh2, Stephen A Metcalf2, Alan J Budney2, Patricia Cavazos-Rehg3, Emily Scherer2, Lisa A Marsch2. 1. Center for Technology and Behavioral Health, Geisel School of Medicine At Dartmouth College, 46 Centerra Parkway, Suite 301, Lebanon, NH, 03766, USA. elizabeth.c.saunders@dartmouth.edu. 2. Center for Technology and Behavioral Health, Geisel School of Medicine At Dartmouth College, 46 Centerra Parkway, Suite 301, Lebanon, NH, 03766, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasingly, treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is offered in integrated treatment models addressing both substance use and other health conditions within the same system. This often includes offering medications for OUD in general medical settings. It remains uncertain whether integrated OUD treatment models are preferred to non-integrated models, where treatment is provided within a distinct treatment system. This study aimed to explore preferences for integrated versus non-integrated treatment models among people with OUD and examine what factors may influence preferences. METHODS: This qualitative study recruited participants (n = 40) through Craigslist advertisements and flyers posted in treatment programs across the United States. Participants were 18 years of age or older and scored a two or higher on the heroin or opioid pain reliever sections of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medications, and Other Substances (TAPS) Tool. Each participant completed a demographic survey and a telephone interview. The interviews were coded and content analyzed. RESULTS: While some participants preferred receiving OUD treatment from an integrated model in a general medical setting, the majority preferred non-integrated models. Some participants preferred integrated models in theory but expressed concerns about stigma and a lack of psychosocial services. Tradeoffs between integrated and non-integrated models were centered around patient values (desire for anonymity and personalization, fear of consequences), the characteristics of the provider and setting (convenience, perceived treatment effectiveness, access to services), and the patient-provider relationship (disclosure, trust, comfort, stigma). CONCLUSIONS: Among this sample of primarily White adults, preferences for non-integrated versus integrated OUD treatment were mixed. Perceived benefits of integrated models included convenience, potential for treatment personalization, and opportunity to extend established relationships with medical providers. Recommendations to make integrated treatment more patient-centered include facilitating access to psychosocial services, educating patients on privacy, individualizing treatment, and prioritizing the patient-provider relationship. This sample included very few minorities and thus findings may not be fully generalizable to the larger population of persons with OUD. Nonetheless, results suggest a need for expansion of both OUD treatment in specialty and general medical settings to ensure access to preferred treatment for all.
BACKGROUND: Increasingly, treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is offered in integrated treatment models addressing both substance use and other health conditions within the same system. This often includes offering medications for OUD in general medical settings. It remains uncertain whether integrated OUD treatment models are preferred to non-integrated models, where treatment is provided within a distinct treatment system. This study aimed to explore preferences for integrated versus non-integrated treatment models among people with OUD and examine what factors may influence preferences. METHODS: This qualitative study recruited participants (n = 40) through Craigslist advertisements and flyers posted in treatment programs across the United States. Participants were 18 years of age or older and scored a two or higher on the heroin or opioid pain reliever sections of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medications, and Other Substances (TAPS) Tool. Each participant completed a demographic survey and a telephone interview. The interviews were coded and content analyzed. RESULTS: While some participants preferred receiving OUD treatment from an integrated model in a general medical setting, the majority preferred non-integrated models. Some participants preferred integrated models in theory but expressed concerns about stigma and a lack of psychosocial services. Tradeoffs between integrated and non-integrated models were centered around patient values (desire for anonymity and personalization, fear of consequences), the characteristics of the provider and setting (convenience, perceived treatment effectiveness, access to services), and the patient-provider relationship (disclosure, trust, comfort, stigma). CONCLUSIONS: Among this sample of primarily White adults, preferences for non-integrated versus integrated OUD treatment were mixed. Perceived benefits of integrated models included convenience, potential for treatment personalization, and opportunity to extend established relationships with medical providers. Recommendations to make integrated treatment more patient-centered include facilitating access to psychosocial services, educating patients on privacy, individualizing treatment, and prioritizing the patient-provider relationship. This sample included very few minorities and thus findings may not be fully generalizable to the larger population of persons with OUD. Nonetheless, results suggest a need for expansion of both OUD treatment in specialty and general medical settings to ensure access to preferred treatment for all.
Entities:
Keywords:
Integrated treatment; Opioid use disorder; Patient preference; Treatment model
Authors: Heather Schacht Reisinger; Robert P Schwartz; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; James A Peterson; Sharon M Kelly; Kevin E O'Grady; Erica A Marrari; Barry S Brown; Michael H Agar Journal: J Psychoactive Drugs Date: 2009-09
Authors: Christina Korownyk; Danielle Perry; Joey Ton; Michael R Kolber; Scott Garrison; Betsy Thomas; G Michael Allan; Nicolas Dugré; Caitlin R Finley; Rhonda Ting; Peter Ran Yang; Ben Vandermeer; Adrienne J Lindblad Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Darren R Christensen; Reid D Landes; Lisa Jackson; Lisa A Marsch; Michael J Mancino; Mohit P Chopra; Warren K Bickel Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2014-08-04
Authors: E A G Joosten; L DeFuentes-Merillas; G H de Weert; T Sensky; C P F van der Staak; C A J de Jong Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2008-04-16 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Elizabeth C Saunders; Alan J Budney; Patricia Cavazos-Rehg; Emily Scherer; Lisa A Marsch Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Sara Spinella; Nicole McCune; Rebecca McCarthy; Maria El-Tahch; Jennifer George; Mary Dorritie; Alyssa Ford; Kira Posteraro; Deborah DiNardo Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Elizabeth Imbert; Matthew D Hickey; Jan Bing Del Rosario; Madellena Conte; Andrew D Kerkhoff; Angelo Clemenzi-Allen; Elise D Riley; Diane V Havlir; Monica Gandhi Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Rahma S Mkuu; Stephanie A Staras; Sarah M Szurek; Dalila D'Ingeo; Mary A Gerend; Dianne L Goede; Elizabeth A Shenkman Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Shu-Wei Liu; Chia-Yi Wu; Ming-Been Lee; Ming-Chi Huang; Chia-Ta Chan; Chun-Ying Chen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 3.390