Physicians’ and Attorneys’ Beliefs and Attitudes Related to the Brain Disease Model of Addiction

Perspectives and Recommendations from Hospitalized Patients with Substance Use Disorders: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) are hospitalized in growing numbers. Stigma is pervasive among their hospital providers, and SUD management during medical admissions is often inadequate. However, little is known about how these patients perceive their care quality. In particular, few studies have explored their positive care perceptions or recommendations for improvement.

OBJECTIVE

To explore perspectives on positive aspects, negative aspects, and consequences of care, as well as recommendations for improvement among hospitalized patients with SUDs.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted semi-structured, in-depth bedside interviews (n = 15) with patients who have been diagnosed with a SUD and were admitted to medical or surgical floors of an urban academic medical center.

APPROACH

Interviews explored patients' hospital experiences and recommendations for improvement. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and imported into NVivo software. Two reviewers independently coded the transcripts using interpretative phenomenological analysis and inductive thematic analysis according to grounded theory, and recurring themes were identified from the data. Patients' demographic and clinical data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.

KEY RESULTS

Perceived clinical and emotional proficiency were the most important components of positive experiences, whereas perceived bias and stigmatized attitudes, clinical improficiency, and inhumane treatment were characteristic of negative experiences. Such care components were most consequential for patients' emotional well-being, trust, and care quality. Recommendations for improving care included specific suggestions for initiating and promoting continued recovery, educating, and partnering in compassionate care.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized patients with SUDs often experience lower quality and less compassionate care linked to pervasive stigma and poor outcomes. Our study highlights under-recognized perspectives from this patient population, including socioemotional consequences of care and recommendations grounded in lived experiences. By striving to advance our care in accordance with patients' viewpoints, we can turn hospitalizations into opportunities for engagement and promoting recovery.

A Quantitative Examination of Illness Models Among People With Opioid Use Disorder Receiving Methadone Treatment

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined illness models among people with addiction. We investigated illness models and their associations with demographics and treatment beliefs among patients receiving methadone treatment for opioid use disorder.

METHODS

From January 2019 to February 2020, patients receiving methadone treatment at outpatient opioid treatment programs provided demographics and rated using 1 to 7 Likert-type scales agreement with addiction illness models (brain disease model, chronic medical condition model [CMCM], and no explanation [NEM]) and treatment beliefs. Pairwise comparisons and multivariate regressions were used to examine associations between illness models, demographics, and treatment beliefs. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 450 patients participated in the study. Forty percent self-identified as female, 13% as Hispanic, and 78% as White; mean age was 38.5 years. Brain disease model was the most frequently endorsed illness model (46.2%), followed by CMCM (41.7%) and NEM (21.9%). In multivariate analyses, agreement with brain disease model was significantly positively associated with beliefs that methadone treatment would be effective, counseling is important, and methadone is lifesaving, whereas agreement with CMCM was significantly positively associated with beliefs that methadone treatment would be effective, counseling is important, 12-step is the best treatment, taking methadone daily is important, and methadone is lifesaving. In multivariate analyses, agreement with NEM was negatively significantly associated with beliefs that methadone would be effective, counseling is important, taking methadone daily is important, and methadone is lifesaving.

DISCUSSION

Many patients in methadone treatment endorsed medicalized addiction models. Agreement with addiction illness models appear to be related to treatment beliefs.

Stigma Against Patients With Substance Use Disorders Among Health Care Professionals and Trainees and Stigma-Reducing Interventions: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

In this systematic review, the authors examine the prevalence and extent of stigmatizing attitudes among health care professionals (HCPs) and trainees against patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), including research on interventions to reduce stigma.

METHOD

The authors searched 7 databases for articles published from January 1, 2011, through February 15, 2023, that quantified SUD stigma among HCPs or trainees. Inclusion criteria allowed both observational and intervention studies from the United States or Canada to be included in this review. Quality assessment was applied to all included studies; studies were not excluded based on quality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,992 unique articles were identified of which 32 articles (17 observational studies and 15 intervention studies), all conducted in the United States, met the inclusion criteria. Half of the included studies (16 of 32) were published in 2020 or later. Most of the intervention studies (13 of 15) used a single-group pre-post design; interventions involved didactics and/or interactions with persons with SUDs. The 32 included studies used a total of 19 different measures of stigma. All 17 observational studies showed some degree of HCP or trainee stigma against patients with SUDs. Most intervention studies (12 of 15) found small but statistically significant reductions in stigma after intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

SUD stigma exists among HCPs and trainees. Some interventions to reduce this stigma had positive impacts, but future studies with larger, diverse participants and comparison groups are needed. Heterogeneity among studies and stigma measures limits the ability to interpret results across studies. Future rigorous research is needed to determine validated, consensus measures of SUD stigma among HCPs and trainees, identify stigma scores that are associated with clinical outcomes, and develop effective antistigma interventions for HCPs and trainees.

A survey of international addiction researchers' views on implications of brain-based explanations of addiction and the responsibility of affected persons

Aim: To complement existing stakeholder surveys by exploring addiction researchers' views on the implications of brain-based explanations of addiction and the responsibilities of addicted persons. Methods: A total of 190 researchers from 29 countries (13.2%) participated in a LimeSurvey. Their perspectives on implications of brain-based explanations of addiction were explored qualitatively using open-ended questions. In addition, respondents could indicate their views on the responsibility of addicted individuals for their condition and actions using a Likert scale and a free-text field ("mixed methods light"). Qualitative analyses inductively identified the most frequent themes and deductively assessed the overall impact (positive, negative or both/ambivalent). Quantitative analyses included frequencies and proportions. Results: The major themes mentioned were medicalisation and the neglect of other factors, better treatment options and access, (reduced) stigma and (impaired) agency of affected persons. The overall evaluation yielded 46% positive, 33% negative and 16% ambivalent views. Approximately 60% of the participants considered addicted persons to be responsible for their condition and 80% for their actions. Conclusions: According to researchers, a brain-based approach to addictions has positive and negative implications. In particular, the neglect of factors other than biomedical seems to be of concern. Thus, a re-consideration of research priorities as well as affected individuals' agency and role in treatment and care seems warranted.

Stigmatization of people with addiction by health professionals: Current knowledge. A scoping review

Background

Stigma of people with substance and non-substance use disorders (SNSUD) is a long-known phenomenon. The aim of this review was to assess the stigmatization, by health professionals, of people with SNSUD, its characteristics and change over time.

Methods

A scoping review of literature reviews was conducted with systematic search of PubMed, Scopus and PsycINFO databases.

Results

From the 19 selected reviews, all focused on people with SUD (PWSUD) only and 20 % to 51 % of health professionals had negative attitudes/beliefs about SUD. Addiction training and clinical experience with PWSUD were associated with a less negative attitude. Health professionals' negative beliefs, lack of time or support were associated with less involvement in addiction care. Tobacco use disorder, SUDs other than alcohol and tobacco, relapse, psychiatric comorbidity or criminal records were associated with a more negative attitude. The influence of several variables potentially related to stigmatization was inconsistent across selected reviews. The evolution of stigmatization over time was not systematically assessed and showed mixed results.

Conclusions

The stigmatization of PWSUD has an impact on their care, and a change in some variables could reduce its importance: moral model of addiction, health professionals' negative beliefs, lack of training, time, and role support. Teaching what addiction is according to the medical chronic disease model, and developing stigma-focused training could improve caregivers' attitudes and further reduce stigma. Further studies are needed to determine whether stigma of PWSUD by health professionals has changed over time and to characterize stigma for people with non-substance use disorders.

Stigma and level of familiarity with opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) among specialist physicians in Israel

CONTEXT

Opioid use disorder (OUD) poses significant public health problems that have increased dramatically, resulting in high rates of morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To minimize the risk of an opioid epidemic in Israel and be prepared, we evaluated physicians' objective knowledge, level of stigma, and approach to prescribing opioids, risk factors, and identification of patients with substance use disorder (SUD), as well as their knowledge about opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) for OUD.

METHODS

Anonymous computerized questionnaires were distributed nationally to physicians by the Israel Medical Association. Knowledge, stigma, and approach were scored.

RESULTS

Of only 249 responders, 58.6% prescribe opioids, 32.1% prescribe cannabis, and 18.5% daily encounter patients with SUD. Logistic regression found the high knowledge group had daily encounters with SUD (Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.5, 95% CI 1.7-7.1) and were familiar with OMT (OR = 10.1, 95% CI 3.5-29.0). The high stigma group was characterized by physicians who prescribe opioids (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.9), but who self-reported having limited knowledge regarding OMT (OR = 2, 95% CI 1.1-3.7). The high approach group was characterized by those who prescribe opioids (OR = 11.7, 95% CI 4.9-28), prescribe cannabis (OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.0-4.3), self-report having limited knowledge regarding OMT (OR = 11.2, 95% CI 1.4-89) and self-report identifying SUD (OR = 32.5, 95% CI 4.1-260).

CONCLUSION

High stigma was most evident among physicians who prescribe opioids but, importantly, who had limited knowledge specifically regarding OMT. Gaps in knowledge and approach were observed. An educational intervention is highly recommended to reduce stigma and increase referrals of patients for OMT, the most effective treatment for opioid use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder and disability insurance in Switzerland: the attitudes and views of lawyers, insurance medical experts, and addiction-specialist therapists

BACKGROUND

According to a landmark decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, people with a substance use disorder (SUD) are now eligible for disability benefits if their disorder impairs their ability to work. Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most common SUDs in Switzerland and is associated with high societal and economic costs. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the views of professional stakeholder groups regarding AUD and their opinions on the new legal precedent.

METHODS

Swiss social insurance lawyers, insurance medical experts, and addiction-specialist therapists (N = 79) answered an online questionnaire. Due to violations of the assumption of normality, non-parametric tests are reported in most cases.

RESULTS

Therapists held significantly higher regard for patients with AUD than both lawyers and insurance medical experts. All three groups strongly supported a disease view of AUD but agreed significantly less that it was a disease like cancer, suggesting that AUDs might be seen as at least partially self-inflicted. Overall, moralist views of AUD received considerably less support than the disease view, with lawyers agreeing with moralist views more than therapists. All groups were well-informed and largely supportive about the new legal precedent. When asked about stipulating participation in medical treatment to mitigate damages associated with a claim, attending therapy was supported the most amongst the groups (80% of participants felt this was somewhat or fully appropriate), followed by a reduction in drinking quantity (58%), and abstinence (18%). In all three groups, we identified associations between certain views and opinions on AUD and support for the new legal precedent.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst there were differences between the stakeholder groups in their regard for and views of AUD, all three adopted a clear harm-reduction approach with respect to measures to mitigate damages associated with the insurance disability claim. A possible connection of this stance with the Swiss national drug policy in recent years is discussed together with limitations of the study and practical implications of the findings.

Police Officers' addiction frameworks and policy attitudes

Police officers have frequent encounters with people who use drugs, either by making an arrest for a drug-related offense or responding to a drug overdose call. Yet, little is known about how police officers view drug addiction - as a disease, a moral failure, or something else - and how their frameworks for conceptualizing addiction impact their attitudes toward drug policies, including the use of naloxone. This research examined police officers' adherence to a moralistic addiction framework in relation to their support for treatment-oriented drug policies. Officers (N = 618) were surveyed about their beliefs on drug policy and the extent to which drug addiction was a product of one's morals or related to social or biological reasons. Results found that approximately 22% of the variance in drug policy attitudes could be explained by addiction frameworks and control variables. Officers who embraced a biological perspective of addiction were more supportive of policies that expanded treatment, including access to naloxone, and less punitive sanctions. Those with stronger moralistic views were less supportive of expanding treatment initiatives and endorsed expanding punitive sanctions. Officer age and education was positively related with expanding treatment and naloxone use while exposure to overdoses was negatively related to policy support. These results demonstrate that officers' frameworks about drug addiction play an important role in drug policy attitudes and, by extension, how they might interact with people who use drugs.