The effects of physician stigma and hesitancy with opioids on patient pain care in the United States: A survey study.

Q3 Medicine Journal of opioid management Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.5055/jom.0872
David W Boorman, Priyanka H Nair, Samuel B John, Joel Zivot, Sudheer Potru
{"title":"The effects of physician stigma and hesitancy with opioids on patient pain care in the United States: A survey study.","authors":"David W Boorman, Priyanka H Nair, Samuel B John, Joel Zivot, Sudheer Potru","doi":"10.5055/jom.0872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Determine if physician stigma toward patients with chronic pain or opioid use disorder or physician hesitancy prescribing opioids adversely affects patient pain care. Explore the demographics associated with stigma and hesitancy.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Survey, 25 questions.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Physician faculty at medical schools (80 percent), private physician Facebook® groups (15 percent), and others (5 percent), all specialties.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>N = 352 attending United States physicians.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>Physician self-reported patient pain care quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Subjectively worse patient pain care was not found to be associated with stigma but had a borderline association with hesitancy (p = 0.046). Subjectively worse pain care was associated with less knowledge and experience with opioids (odds ratio [OR] 4.1, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] 3.0-5.6), practicing in the Midwest region (OR 2.1, 95 percent CI 1.2-3.4), and specialty: emergency (OR 53, 95 percent CI 20-139), other internal (OR 15, 95 percent CI 6.6-34), and general medicine (OR 12, 95 percent CI 5.4-26) compared to pain medicine. Physician stigma was more likely to be high in males (OR 2.5, 95 percent CI 1.5-4.3) and medium in physicians over 55 (OR 2.5, 95 percent CI 1.5-4.5). Compared to medium stigma, those with low stigma (General Linear Model (GLM) 0.35, 95 percent CI 0.18-0.52) and high stigma (GLM 0.22, 95 percent CI 0.01-0.44) were both more hesitant to prescribe opioids. More hesitancy was associated with less knowledge and experience (GLM 0.14, 95 percent CI 0.05-0.22) and physicians under 55 (GLM 0.24, 95 percent CI 0.08-0.40).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although physician stigma was not found to affect patient pain care adversely, self-reporting bias and/or questionnaire issues may account for this. Physician specialty and knowledge and experience with opioids were important factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":16601,"journal":{"name":"Journal of opioid management","volume":"20 6","pages":"449-470"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of opioid management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.0872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Determine if physician stigma toward patients with chronic pain or opioid use disorder or physician hesitancy prescribing opioids adversely affects patient pain care. Explore the demographics associated with stigma and hesitancy.

Design: Survey, 25 questions.

Setting: Physician faculty at medical schools (80 percent), private physician Facebook® groups (15 percent), and others (5 percent), all specialties.

Participants: N = 352 attending United States physicians.

Main outcome measure: Physician self-reported patient pain care quality.

Results: Subjectively worse patient pain care was not found to be associated with stigma but had a borderline association with hesitancy (p = 0.046). Subjectively worse pain care was associated with less knowledge and experience with opioids (odds ratio [OR] 4.1, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] 3.0-5.6), practicing in the Midwest region (OR 2.1, 95 percent CI 1.2-3.4), and specialty: emergency (OR 53, 95 percent CI 20-139), other internal (OR 15, 95 percent CI 6.6-34), and general medicine (OR 12, 95 percent CI 5.4-26) compared to pain medicine. Physician stigma was more likely to be high in males (OR 2.5, 95 percent CI 1.5-4.3) and medium in physicians over 55 (OR 2.5, 95 percent CI 1.5-4.5). Compared to medium stigma, those with low stigma (General Linear Model (GLM) 0.35, 95 percent CI 0.18-0.52) and high stigma (GLM 0.22, 95 percent CI 0.01-0.44) were both more hesitant to prescribe opioids. More hesitancy was associated with less knowledge and experience (GLM 0.14, 95 percent CI 0.05-0.22) and physicians under 55 (GLM 0.24, 95 percent CI 0.08-0.40).

Conclusions: Although physician stigma was not found to affect patient pain care adversely, self-reporting bias and/or questionnaire issues may account for this. Physician specialty and knowledge and experience with opioids were important factors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of opioid management
Journal of opioid management Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Opioid Management deals with all aspects of opioids. From basic science, pre-clinical, clinical, abuse, compliance and addiction medicine, the journal provides and unbiased forum for researchers and clinicians to explore and manage the complexities of opioid prescription.
期刊最新文献
A pilot study to examine the opioid prescribing practices of medical residents. Buprenorphine: An anesthesia-centric review. Initial dose of tapentadol and concomitant use of duloxetine are associated with delirium occurring after initiation of tapentadol therapy in cancer patients. Insurance coverage and consistent pricing is needed for over-the-counter naloxone. Naloxone coprescribing best practice advisory for patients at high risk for opioid-related adverse events.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1