4.2 Article

Patient Perspectives on Choosing Buprenorphine Over Methadone in an Urban, Equal-Access System

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 285-291

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2012.12004.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recent policy initiatives in Baltimore City, MD significantly reduced access disparities between methadone and buprenorphine in the publicly funded treatment sector. Objectives: This study examines reasons for choosing buprenorphine over methadone among patients with access to both medications. Method: This study was embedded within a larger clinical trial conducted at two outpatient substance abuse treatment programs offering buprenorphine. Qualitative and quantitative data on treatment choice were collected for new patients starting buprenorphine treatment (n = 80). The sample consisted of predominantly urban African American (94%) heroin users who had prior experience with non-prescribed street buprenorphine (85%), and opioid agonist treatment (68%). Qualitative data were transcribed and coded for themes, while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. Results: Participants typically conveyed their choice of buprenorphine treatment as a decision against methadone. Buprenorphine was perceived as a helpful medication while methadone was perceived as a harmful narcotic with multiple unwanted physical effects. Positive experiences with non-prescribed street buprenorphine were a central factor in participants' decisions to seek buprenorphine treatment. Conclusions: Differences in service structure between methadone and buprenorphine did not strongly influence treatment-seeking decisions in this sample. Personal experiences with medications and the street narrative surrounding them play an important role in treatment selection decisions. Scientific Significance: This study characterizes important decision factors that underlie patients' selection of buprenorphine over methadone treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据