US physicians' decision-making during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment: Conjoint analyses of dose and office visit adjustments based on patient progress.

Journal: Drug And Alcohol Dependence
Published:
Abstract

Background: Research on how US physicians individualize buprenorphine-naloxone treatment is limited. The current study uses conjoint analysis to examine the importance of current dose, visit frequency, clinical indicators, and payment type on office visit and dose adjustments during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment.

Methods: A national random sample of 776 US buprenorphine-prescribing physicians participated in a mailed survey between October 2015 and July 2018. The survey contained 16 patient vignettes describing: (1) current dose, (2) urine drug test (UDT) results and opioid blockade, (3) recent intravenous use, (4) visit attendance, (5) counseling adherence, (6) payment, and (7) visit schedule. Physicians rated how they would adjust office visits (0=definitely decrease to 5=no change to 10=definitely increase) and the dose (0=definitely decrease to 5=no change to 10=definitely increase). Descriptive statistics were calculated for the vignette responses. Conjoint analysis was used to estimate relative importance scores and part-worth utilities.

Results: Across the vignettes, the mean response for adjusting office visits was 7.43 (SD = 1.69), indicating a tendency to increase the frequency of visits. UDT results/opioid blockade, intravenous use, and current visit schedule had the greatest importance scores for office visit adjustments. The mean response for adjusting the dose was 5.48 (SD = 1.69), corresponding with a tendency toward not changing dose. Current dose, UDT results/opioid blockade, and intravenous use had the largest importance scores for dose adjustment.

Conclusions: Physicians individualized buprenorphine-naloxone treatment in response to hypothetical patient attributes by changing visit frequency and, to a lesser extent, modifying maintenance dose, in a manner generally consistent with current practice guidelines.

Authors
Hannah Knudsen, Michelle Lofwall, Lewei Lin, Sharon Walsh, Jamie Studts