Drug and alcohol review · 2020
Receipt of training about medication for opioid use disorder from pharmaceutical manufacturers: A preliminary study of Florida criminal problem-solving and dependency court staff.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Andraka-Christou Barbara, Atkins Danielle, Madeira Jody, Silverman Ross D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: People with opioid use disorder are prevalent in criminal problem-solving courts and dependency courts, which have rehabilitative aims. Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the standard of care. Court staff set treatment policies for court clients. They may receive training from MOUD manufacturers, but no studies have examined court staff receipt of such training.
DESIGN AND METHODS: To examine receipt of training from MOUD manufacturers, we designed a cross-sectional survey for court staff. We distributed it online to all Florida court staff in criminal problem-solving or dependency courts (n = 585). Outcome variables were receipt of training from one or more MOUD manufacturers and training source. Covariates included dichotomous measures of court type, staff role, gender and rurality. Logistic regression models estimated the relationship between receipt of training and covariates.
RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of Florida criminal problem-solving and dependency court staff completed the survey. The most common receipt of training was from the manufacturer of extended-release naltrexone (36%), followed by buprenorphine (24%) and methadone (11%). Fifty-seven percent of those who received training received it from more than one MOUD manufacturer. Criminal problem-solving court staff were more likely than dependency court staff to receive training from MOUD manufacturers. Court program co-ordinators were more likely than other staff roles to receive training from MOUD manufacturers.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A large minority of respondents received training from a MOUD manufacturer, primarily from extended-release naltrexone's manufacturer, raising concerns regarding information accuracy and conflicts of interest. Court staff should seek MOUD training from academic institutions and non-profit organisations instead.
DESIGN AND METHODS: To examine receipt of training from MOUD manufacturers, we designed a cross-sectional survey for court staff. We distributed it online to all Florida court staff in criminal problem-solving or dependency courts (n = 585). Outcome variables were receipt of training from one or more MOUD manufacturers and training source. Covariates included dichotomous measures of court type, staff role, gender and rurality. Logistic regression models estimated the relationship between receipt of training and covariates.
RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of Florida criminal problem-solving and dependency court staff completed the survey. The most common receipt of training was from the manufacturer of extended-release naltrexone (36%), followed by buprenorphine (24%) and methadone (11%). Fifty-seven percent of those who received training received it from more than one MOUD manufacturer. Criminal problem-solving court staff were more likely than dependency court staff to receive training from MOUD manufacturers. Court program co-ordinators were more likely than other staff roles to receive training from MOUD manufacturers.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A large minority of respondents received training from a MOUD manufacturer, primarily from extended-release naltrexone's manufacturer, raising concerns regarding information accuracy and conflicts of interest. Court staff should seek MOUD training from academic institutions and non-profit organisations instead.