Search

Clinically focused interventions for people living with pain, such as health professional education, clinical decision support systems, prescription drug monitoring programs, and multidisciplinary care to support opioid tapering, have all been promoted as important solutions to the North American opioid crisis. Yet none have so far delivered substantive beneficial opioid-related population health outcomes. In fact, while total opioid prescribing has leveled off or reduced in many jurisdictions, population-level harms from opioids have continued to increase dramatically. We attribute this failure partly to a poor recognition of the epistemic and ethical complexities at the interface of clinical and population health. We draw on a framework of knowledge networks in wicked problems to identify 3 strategies to help navigate these complexities: (1) designing and evaluating clinically focused interventions as complex interventions, (2) reformulating evidence to make population health dynamics apparent, and (3) appealing to the inseparability of facts and values to support decision-making in uncertainty. We advocate that applying these strategies will better equip clinically focused interventions as complements to structural and public health interventions to achieve the desired beneficial population health effects. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S56–S65. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306500) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite concerns surrounding high patient volumes in methadone clinics, little is known about the practice patterns of opioid maintenance therapy (OMT) providers in Ontario. We examined the distribution of these services and how physician characteristics differ based on prescribing volume.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among prescribers of methadone or buprenorphine to Ontario public drug beneficiaries in 2014 by stratifying physicians into low- (lower 50%), moderate- (51-89%) and high-volume (top 10%) prescribers. We summarized the distribution of OMT prescription days dispensed and urine drug screens (UDS) ordered using Lorenz curves and examined physician characteristics using descriptive statistics.Results: We identified 893 OMT prescribers in 2014. Physicians were mostly male (67.5%; N=603), and middle-aged (median was 50). High-volume methadone providers (N=57) prescribed approximately 56% (N=4,115,322) of the total days of methadone (Gini coefficient=0.76, 95% CI 0.74-0.79) while high-volume buprenorphine providers (N=64) prescribed 61% (N=589,463) of the total days of buprenorphine (Gini coefficient=0.78, 95% CI 0.75-0.80). On average, each high-volume methadone prescriber treated 435 OMT patients and billed 43 UDS per patient, while each high-volume buprenorphine prescriber treated 64 OMT patients and billed 22 UDS per patient. Daily OMT patient volume was on average 74 for high-volume methadone prescribers and 6 for high-volume buprenorphine prescribers.Conclusions: OMT services are highly concentrated among a small portion of OMT providers who carry high daily patient volumes. Future research should examine the quality of primary care received by their patients to better elucidate the possible consequences of this highly unequal distribution of services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]