Barriers and facilitators for family physicians prescribing opioid agonist therapy in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore barriers and facilitators for family physicians in Saskatchewan prescribing opioid agonist therapy (OAT). DESIGN: Self-administered postal survey. SETTING: Family medicine practices in Saskatchewan. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 218 Saskatchewan family physicians who were not authorized to prescribe OAT as of June 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive and inferential statistics of physicians' self-reported barriers to and facilitators of prescribing OAT for opioid use disorder (OUD). RESULTS: Most respondents (84.8%) had some comfort with diagnosing OUD. However, more than half (58.3%) did not feel confident or knowledgeable about prescribing OAT. Barriers to OAT prescribing included lack of time, incomplete training requirements, lack of interest, insufficient funding or support, feeling overwhelmed, and perceiving that OAT does not work and thus is not necessary. Physicians working in core neighbourhoods and those receiving fee-for-service compensation reported the least available time to prescribe OAT. Conversely, physicians working in interdisciplinary team settings had increased time for OAT prescribing compared with physicians in other settings. Having a close personal relationship with someone with OUD was correlated with increased comfort in diagnosing OUD as well as with knowledge about and confidence in prescribing OAT. Themes identified as facilitators to increasing OAT prescribing included the addition of resources and supports, increased training, more awareness about OUD and OAT, enhanced compensation, and altered prescribing regulations. CONCLUSION: Despite the presence of several real and perceived barriers limiting OAT prescribing by Saskatchewan family physicians, there are family physicians interested in providing this therapy. Increased clinical resources and support, including increased interdisciplinary practice, are actionable steps that should be considered by policy decision makers to address this issue. Additionally, increased OUD and OAT education, which includes the perspectives of those with lived experience of OUD, would help address physician confidence, knowledge, and awareness in this area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".