Search

Abstract: Background: Guidelines suggest the patient community should be consulted from the outset when designing and implementing basic biomedical research, but such patient communities may include conflicting views. We examined how engagement occurred in one such instance. Objective: Our objective was to scrutinize patient and public involvement (PPI) by a pan‐European biomedical consortium working to develop drugs to treat autism. We aimed to use this as an example to illustrate how PPI has been utilized in biomedical research. Setting, participants and analysis: Two public events, one in the UK and one in Denmark were conducted as part of the consortium's on‐going PPI activities in 2014 and 2015. Sixty‐six individuals submitted written comments on the consortium's research after these events. The textual data produced were analysed using a thematic approach. Approximately 71% of respondents reported themselves to be adults on the autism spectrum or parents of children with autism. Results: The themes identified illustrated major differences between some community concerns and the biomedical research agenda. While treating autism per se. was seen as problematic by some, treating specific co‐occurring problems was seen as helpful in some circumstances. The biomedical consortium selected PPI with a limited user viewpoint at its outset and more widely once basic research was on‐going. Discussion: This case illustrates what we term “selective PPI” where only a sympathetic and/or limited patient viewpoint is included. Findings highlight the perils of using selective PPI to legitimise scientific endeavours, and the possibilities for constructive dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Buprenorphine, a medication for treating opioid dependence, is underutilized in specialty addiction treatment organizations. Only physicians who have obtained a buprenorphine prescribing license or "waiver" may administer this medication. A limited number of physicians are pursuing this waiver, and a concern in the substance use disorder treatment field is that the shortage of prescribers could be contributing to the low use of buprenorphine at specialty addiction treatment centers. The objective of this study is to assess Ohio specialty treatment organizations' access to buprenorphine prescribers and the barriers they encounter when seeking new physician prescribing capacity., Methods: Forty-one Ohio specialty addiction treatment organizations were invited to complete a survey of their buprenorphine practices and availability of buprenorphine prescribers during August-October 2014. Data was collected on pharmacotherapies used in the treatment of opioid dependence, arrangements treatment organizations have with prescribing physicians, buprenorphine prescribing capacity, and barriers encountered in recruiting new physician prescribers., Results: Thirty-seven treatment organizations responded, for a response rate of 90.2%. Seventy-eight percent (n=29) of the sample provided buprenorphine therapy. Of those treatment organizations, 48.3% (n=14) reported insufficient prescribing capacity. Of those, 50% (n=7) indicated they had to turn patients away from buprenorphine therapy due to limited physician prescribing capacity., Conclusion: The study suggests that buprenorphine use is constrained by limited physician prescribing capacity, to the degree that 24.1% of the organizations surveyed using buprenorphine therapy had to turn patients away. Potential remedies include encouraging more specialty treatment organizations to have physicians on staff, removing the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA 2000) cap that limits physician buprenorphine caseloads at 100 patients (after year 1), and developing strategies to recruit physicians into addiction treatment practice. Additional research is needed to increase the knowledge of physician prescribing capacity as a barrier to buprenorphine use, how to overcome these barriers, and to understand the extent physician capacity shortages are affecting buprenorphine use.