Patient satisfaction with primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment

61Citations
Citations of this article
81Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Factors associated with satisfaction among patients receiving primary care-based buprenorphine/naloxone are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors related to patient satisfaction in patients receiving primary care-based buprenorphine/naloxone that varied in counseling intensity (20 vs 45 minutes) and office visit frequency (weekly vs thrice weekly). DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and forty-two opioid-dependent subjects. MEASUREMENTS: Demographics, drug treatment history, and substance use status at baseline and during treatment were collected. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Patients' mean overall satisfaction score was 4.4 (out of 5). Patients were most satisfied with the medication and ancillary services and indicated strong willingness to refer a substance-abusing friend for the same treatment. Patients were least satisfied with their interactions with other opioid-dependent patients, referrals to Narcotics Anonymous, and the inconvenience of the treatment location. Female gender (β=.17, P=.04) and non-White ethnicity/race (β=.17, P=.04) independently predicted patient satisfaction. Patients who received briefer counseling and buprenorphine/ naloxone dispensed weekly had greater satisfaction than those whose medication was dispensed thrice weekly (mean difference 4.9, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 9.80, P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are satisfied with primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone. Providers should consider the identified barriers to patient satisfaction. © 2007 Society of General Internal Medicine.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barry, D. T., Moore, B. A., Pantalon, M. V., Chawarski, M. C., Sullivan, L. E., O’Connor, P. G., … Fiellin, D. A. (2007). Patient satisfaction with primary care office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(2), 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0050-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free