Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40055801›Full record

ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2025

"It's within your own power": shared decision-making to support transitions to buprenorphine.

Beth E Williams, Stephen A Martin, Kim A Hoffman, Mason D Andrus, Elona Dellabough-Gormley, Bradley M Buchheit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Beth E WilliamsDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine & Geriatrics, Section of Addiction Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. willbeth@ohsu.edu.
Stephen A MartinDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, UMass Chan School of Medicine, 55 N Lake Ave, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Kim A HoffmanDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine & Geriatrics, Section of Addiction Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Mason D AndrusDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Elona Dellabough-GormleySchool of Nursing, Oregon Health and Science University, 3076, 3455 SW US Veterans Hospital Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Bradley M BuchheitDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine & Geriatrics, Section of Addiction Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBuprenorphine is an effective first-line treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) that substantially reduces morbidity and mortality. For patients using illicitly-manufactured fentanyl (IMF), however, transitioning to buprenorphine can be challenging. Evidence is lacking for how best to make this transition in the outpatient setting. A shared decision-making (SDM) approach has been found to benefit patients with OUD but has not been studied for buprenorphine initiation. We sought to explore participants' experiences with a SDM approach to buprenorphine initiation.

methodsParticipants were seeking care at a low barrier, telehealth buprenorphine clinic. Clinicians implemented a standardized SDM approach whereby they offered patients using IMF three options for buprenorphine initiation (traditional, low-dose, and QuickStart). They elicited patient goals and preferences and discussed the pros and cons of each method to come to a shared decision. Patients meeting study criteria were invited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews 1-2 weeks after the initial visit. Interviews focused on experiences with the clinical visit, suggestions for enhancing the treatment experience, and patient factors affecting the method they chose. Interviews were coded and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsTwenty participants completed interviews. Participants' mean age was 33, they were 50% female, predominantly white (16 [80%]), and most had Medicaid insurance (19 [95%]). We identified three important themes. First, participants found SDM acceptable and a positive addition to their OUD treatment. They felt their opinion mattered and reported that SDM gave them important control over their care plan. Second, patient goals, preferences, and past experiences with buprenorphine-associated withdrawal impacted what type of buprenorphine initiation method they chose. Finally, participants had advice for clinicians to improve SDM counseling. Participant recommendations included ensuring patients are informed that withdrawal (or "feeling sick") can occur with any initiation method, that buprenorphine will eventually "block" fentanyl effects once at a high enough dose, and that clinicians provide specific advice for tapering off fentanyl during a low dose initiation.

conclusionsFor patients with OUD using IMF, shared decision-making is an acceptable approach to buprenorphine initiation in the outpatient setting. It can enhance patient autonomy and lead to an individualized approach to OUD care.

Indexed as

BuprenorphineDecision Making, SharedNarcotic AntagonistsOpiate Substitution TreatmentOpioid-Related DisordersPatient ParticipationAdultAnalgesics, OpioidFemaleFentanylHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineFentanylNarcotic AntagonistsBuprenorphineOpioid use disorderPatient-centered careShared decision-makingSubstance use disorder

Identifiers

PMID40055801
PMCPMC11887398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.