The Availability of Ancillary Counseling in the Practices of Physicians Prescribing Buprenorphine.
The Availability of Ancillary Counseling in the Practices of Physicians Prescribing Buprenorphine.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/adm.0000000000000247
复制
发表时间：
2016-09
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Moore BA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barry DT;Fazzino T;Necrason E;Ginn J;Fiellin LE;Fiellin DA;Moore BA
我们开始检查医生对为接受丁丙诺啡的阿片依赖患者提供辅助服务的看法。美国成瘾医学会向其成员(约3700名医生)和其他实体(总共约7000个电子邮件地址)发出了一封描述这项研究的电子邮件邀请函。电子邮件收件人被邀请参加由美国国家药物滥用研究所资助的一项研究，该研究完成了一项在线调查；346名医生完成了调查。在346名受访者中，大多数是内科或家庭医学(37%)或成瘾药物提供者(30%)，他们在城市(57%)或郊区(27%)执业。大多数受访者报告说，要么提供(66%)，要么转介患者进行辅助咨询(31%)。提供干预或转介最多的分别是个人咨询(51%)和自助小组(63%)。咨询的可获得性因提供者的专业化而显著不同，无论是个人、团体、家庭或夫妇还是自助团体。一般来说，受访者报告遵守了丁丙诺啡治疗阿片类药物使用障碍的辅助咨询要求。除了检查接受阿片激动剂治疗的患者的各种辅助咨询服务的有效性外，进一步的研究还应检查医生对此类咨询在丁丙诺啡治疗中的作用的态度。虽然研究样本相对较大，但研究结果的概括性尚不清楚，这表明可能需要在更大的具有全国代表性的提供者样本中进一步调查丁丙诺啡治疗中辅助咨询的可用性。
We set out to examine physicians’ perceptions of the provision of ancillary services for opioid dependent patients receiving buprenorphine. An email invitation describing the study was sent out by the American Society of Addiction Medicine to its membership (approximately 3,700 physicians) and other entities (for a total of approximately 7,000 email addresses). Email recipients were invited to participate in a research study funded by the National Institutes on Drug Abuse involving completion of an online survey; 346 physicians completed the survey. The majority of the 346 respondents were internal or family medicine (37%) or addiction medicine providers (30%) who were practicing in urban (57%) or suburban settings (27%). Most respondents reported either offering (66%) or referring patients for ancillary counseling (31%). Interventions that were most frequently offered or referrals provided were individual counseling (51%) and self-help groups (63%), respectively. Counseling availability differed significantly by provider specialization for any, individual, group, family or couples, and self-help groups. Generally, respondents reported compliance with ancillary counseling requirements for buprenorphine treatment of opioid use disorder. In addition to examining the efficacy of a variety of ancillary counseling services for patients receiving opioid agonist treatment, further research should examine physicians’ attitudes toward the role of such counseling in buprenorphine treatment. While the study sample was relatively large, the generalizability of the findings is unclear, suggesting that further investigation of the availability of ancillary counseling in buprenorphine treatment among a larger nationally representative sample of providers may be warranted.