Clinician Willingness to Prescribe Medications for Opioid Use Disorder to Adolescents in Indiana

Abstract

Importance: Prescribing medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD), including buprenorphine, naltrexone, and methadone, to adolescents remains an underused evidence-based strategy for reducing harms associated with opioid use.

Objective: To identify potential associations between clinician- and community-level characteristics regarding clinicians' self-reported willingness to prescribe MOUD to adolescents.

Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study included a phone survey of Indiana clinicians and spatial analysis of community-level characteristics. Clinicians were eligible for inclusion in analyses if actively providing health care and listed on the Buprenorphine Practitioner Locator website, a publicly available national registry of clinicians possessing a waiver to legally prescribe buprenorphine (ie, waivered clinicians).

Exposures: Community-level characteristics, including total population, rurality or urbanicity, percentage with incomes below the federal poverty line, and racial or ethnic makeup.

Main outcomes and measures: Clinicians were asked about their willingness to prescribe MOUD to adolescents younger than 18 years if clinically indicated. Responses were recorded as no, yes, or yes with conditions.

Results: Among the 871 clinicians listed on the website as of July 2022, 832 were eligible for inclusion and contacted by phone. Among waivered clinicians, 759 (91.2%) reported being unwilling to prescribe MOUD to adolescents, 73 clinicians (8.8%) reported willingness to prescribe MOUD to adolescents, and only 24 (2.9%) would do so without conditions. A multivariable logistic regression model including spatially lagged community-level variables showed that, among areas with waivered clinicians, clinicians practicing in more populated areas were significantly less likely to prescribe to adolescents (β = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87; P = .003). Similarly, those in more rural areas were significantly more likely to prescribe to adolescents (β = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.58; P = .03). Variation in clinician willingness to prescribe was not explained by other community-level characteristics. Among all waivered clinicians, advanced practice clinicians were less likely than physicians to report willingness to prescribe (β = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.97; P = .04), as were physicians without any specialty training relevant to MOUD prescribing when compared with family medicine clinicians (β = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.89; P = .03). A small subgroup of waivered clinicians had training in pediatrics (13 clinicians [1.6%]), and none were willing to prescribe MOUD to adolescents.

Conclusions and relevance: From this cross-sectional study, it appears that Indiana adolescents continued to face gaps in access to MOUD treatment, despite its well-established efficacy. Programs that support primary care practitioners, including family medicine clinicians and pediatricians, in safe and appropriate use of MOUD in adolescents may bridge these gaps.