Physician blame and vulnerability: novel predictors of physician willingness to work with patients who misuse opioids

Physician Reluctance to Intervene in Addiction: A Systematic Review

Importance

The overdose epidemic continues in the US, with 107 941 overdose deaths in 2022 and countless lives affected by the addiction crisis. Although widespread efforts to train and support physicians to implement medications and other evidence-based substance use disorder interventions have been ongoing, adoption of these evidence-based practices (EBPs) by physicians remains low.

Objective

To describe physician-reported reasons for reluctance to address substance use and addiction in their clinical practices using screening, treatment, harm reduction, or recovery support interventions.

Data Sources

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, and SSRN Medical Research Network was conducted and returned articles published from January 1, 1960, through October 5, 2021.

Study Selection

Publications that included physicians, discussed substance use interventions, and presented data on reasons for reluctance to intervene in addiction were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers (L.N., M.C., L.F., J.P., C.S., and S.W.) independently reviewed each publication; a third reviewer resolved discordant votes (M.C. and W.C.). This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and the theoretical domains framework was used to systematically extract reluctance reasons.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was reasons for physician reluctance to address substance use disorder. The association of reasons for reluctance with practice setting and drug type was also measured. Reasons and other variables were determined according to predefined criteria.

Results

A total of 183 of 9308 returned studies reporting data collected from 66 732 physicians were included. Most studies reported survey data. Alcohol, nicotine, and opioids were the most often studied substances; screening and treatment were the most often studied interventions. The most common reluctance reasons were lack of institutional support (173 of 213 articles [81.2%]), knowledge (174 of 242 articles [71.9%]), skill (170 of 230 articles [73.9%]), and cognitive capacity (136 of 185 articles [73.5%]). Reimbursement concerns were also noted. Bivariate analysis revealed associations between these reasons and physician specialty, intervention type, and drug.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of reasons for physician reluctance to intervene in addiction, the most common reasons were lack of institutional support, knowledge, skill, and cognitive capacity. Targeting these reasons with education and training, policy development, and program implementation may improve adoption by physicians of EBPs for substance use and addiction care. Future studies of physician-reported reasons for reluctance to adopt EBPs may be improved through use of a theoretical framework and improved adherence to and reporting of survey development best practices; development of a validated survey instrument may further improve study results.

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.

Buprenorphine misinformation and willingness to treat patients with opioid use disorder among primary care-aligned health care professionals

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is a highly effective medication for opioid use disorder that is underused by health care professionals (HCPs). Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) misinformation may be an important barrier to buprenorphine access, but most implementation strategies have aimed to reduce negative attitudes towards patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) rather than misinformation specific to buprenorphine use. In this study, we assessed the degree to which HCPs endorsed misinformation related to buprenorphine, and whether this is associated with willingness to provide care to patients with OUD.

METHODS

In September-December of 2022, we surveyed HCPs practicing in Ohio (n = 409). Our primary outcomes included a previously validated 5-item measure of HCP willingness to treat patients with OUD, and three other measures of willingness. Our key independent variable was a study-developed 5-item measure of endorsement of misinformation related to buprenorphine, which assessed beliefs in buprenorphine's efficacy in managing withdrawal symptoms and reducing overdose deaths as well as beliefs about the role of buprenorphine in achieving remission. We computed descriptive and bivariable statistics and fit regression models predicting each outcome of interest.

RESULTS

On average, HCPs scored 2.34 out of 5.00 (SD = 0.80) on the composite measure of buprenorphine misinformation. 48.41% of participants endorsed at least one piece of misinformation. The most endorsed items were that buprenorphine is ineffective at reducing overdose deaths (M = 2.75, SD =0 .98), and that its use substitutes one drug for another (M = 2.41, SD = 1.25). HCP endorsement of buprenorphine misinformation significantly and negatively predicted willingness to work with patients with OUD (b = - 0.34; 95% CI - 0.46, - 0.21); intentions to increase time spent with this patient population (b = - 0.36; 95% CI - 5.86, - 1.28); receipt of an X-waiver (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38, 0.77); and intention to get an X-waiver (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Misinformation is common among HCPs and associated with lower willingness to treat patients with OUD. Implementation strategies to increase MOUD use among HCPs should specifically counter misinformation related to buprenorphine.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05505227. Registered 17 August 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05505227.

Barriers to Working with Patients Who Misuse Opioids and Physician Burnout: Implications for Medical Education

BACKGROUND

Physicians are on the front lines of the U.S. opioid epidemic, providing care in multiple treatment settings. Very little is known, however, about whether this experience has contributed to physician burnout. This information is critical for guiding efforts to expand the relatively low level of training on opioid misuse currently available in medical education.

METHODS

We surveyed 408 board-certified physicians practicing in Ohio about their experiences working with patients who misuse opioids. We also collected quantitative measures of physicians' burnout and their level of contact with this patient population. We coded and analyzed open-ended responses and calculated a partial correlation between contact and burnout, controlling for relevant factors.

RESULTS

Physicians experienced three primary barriers when working with patients who misuse opioids: inadequate knowledge and training, limited external resources and partnerships in their communities, and an incomplete context for understanding problematic patient behaviors. 70% of physicians experienced negative emotions when working with this patient population and 19% mentioned experiencing burnout specifically. Contact with patients who misuse opioids was significantly and positively associated with burnout scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings underscore the need for medical educators to take a proactive approach to equipping physicians with the knowledge, skills, and resources needed to effectively work with patients who misuse opioids.

Investigating Healthcare Provider Bias Toward Patients Who Use Drugs Using a Survey-based Implicit Association Test: Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

Negative bias against people who use illicit drugs adversely affects the care that they receive throughout the hospital. We hypothesized that emergency providers would display stronger negative bias toward these patients due to life-threatening contexts in which they treat this population. We also hypothesized that negative implicit bias would be associated with negative explicit bias.

METHODS

Faculty, nurses, and trainees at a midwestern tertiary care academic hospital were invited (June 26, 2019-September 5, 2019) to complete an online implicit association test and explicit bias survey.

RESULTS

Mean implicit association test results did not vary across demographics (n = 79). There were significant differences in explicit bias scores between departments regarding whether patients who use drugs deserve quality healthcare access (P = 0.017). We saw no significant associations between implicit and explicit bias scores.

CONCLUSION

Though limited by sample size, the results indicate that emergency and obstetrics/gynecology providers display more negative explicit bias toward this patient population than other providers.