Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Successfully combating the opioid crisis requires patients who misuse opioids to have access to affirming and effective health care. However, there is a shortage of physicians who are willing to work with these patients. We investigated novel predictors of what might be contributing to physicians' unwillingness to engage with this patient population to better identify and direct interventions to improve physician attitudes. METHODS: 333 physicians who were board certified in the state of Ohio completed a survey about their willingness to work with patients who misuse opioids. The hypothesized relationships between the proposed predictors and willingness to work with this patient population were tested using multivariate regression, supplemented with qualitative analysis of open-text responses to questions about the causes of addiction. RESULTS: Perceptions of personal invulnerability to opioid misuse and addiction, opioid misuse and addiction controllability, and health care provider blame for the opioid crisis were negatively associated with physician willingness to work with patients who misuse opioids after controlling for known predictors of physician bias toward patients with substance use disorders. Physicians working in family and internal medicine, addiction medicine, and emergency medicine were also more willing to work with this patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Distancing oneself and health care professionals from opioid misuse and placing blame on those who misuse are negatively associated with treatment willingness. Interventions to improve physician willingness to work with patients who misuse opioids can target these beliefs as a way to improve physician attitudes and provide patients with needed health care resources.

Introduction: The use of telemedicine (TM) for patient care greatly increased during the COVID pandemic. This study presents data from a single health system regarding physician's perspectives on TM, which could ultimately determine how it is used in the future. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to physicians throughout the health system. Physicians were divided based on the standard level of patient interaction in each specialty, as well as practice locations and years in practice. Physician perspectives were categorized by their opinions on different aspects of telehealth visits. Results: Of 1,794 physicians, 379 (20.7%) responded to the survey. Psychiatrists used TM significantly more than other groups and project the most future use. Surgeons were least likely to incorporate TM in the future. Ability to perform a physical examination via TM differed significantly by specialty and practice environment, but not by years in practice. Frequency of being able to complete a treatment plan via TM differed significantly by specialty, but not by years in practice or practice environment. Overall, 76.3% of physicians reported feeling "satisfied" with performing TM visits. Satisfaction with TM varied significantly by specialty and practice environment, but not by years in practice. There were no significant differences regarding physician expectations on reimbursement or billing for TM visits based on specialty, age, or practice environment. Conclusions: Discrepancies exist among physicians with respect to their satisfaction and expected future use of TM. Consensus may be difficult to reach regarding reimbursement for these visits, and further work is needed to clarify the optimal practice setting for TM.

BACKGROUND: As artificial intelligence (AI) tools are integrated more widely in psychiatric medicine, it is important to consider the impact these tools will have on clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize physician perspectives on the potential impact AI tools will have in psychiatric medicine. METHODS: We interviewed 42 physicians (21 psychiatrists and 21 family medicine practitioners). These interviews used detailed clinical case scenarios involving the use of AI technologies in the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric conditions. Interviews were transcribed and subsequently analyzed using qualitative analysis methods. RESULTS: Physicians highlighted multiple potential benefits of AI tools, including potential support for optimizing pharmaceutical efficacy, reducing administrative burden, aiding shared decision-making, and increasing access to health services, and were optimistic about the long-term impact of these technologies. This optimism was tempered by concerns about potential near-term risks to both patients and themselves including misguiding clinical judgment, increasing clinical burden, introducing patient harms, and creating legal liability. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the importance of considering specialist perspectives when deploying AI tools in psychiatric medicine.