Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Perspectives of substance use disorder counselors on the benefits and drawbacks of medications for opioid use disorder

Addiction Science & Clinical Practice volume 20, Article number: 7 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are among the best tools available to combat the opioid epidemic. Yet, use of MOUD among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) remains low. Interventions to increase MOUD access in the United States have largely focused on improving organizational capacity and addressing funding barriers, yet stigma toward MOUD may inhibit uptake even where MOUD is readily available. Non-prescribing substance use disorder (SUD) treatment professionals (e.g. counselors) likely have considerable influence on a client’s choice to initiate and adhere to MOUD, but beliefs that counselors convey about MOUD in interaction with clients are understudied. The current study explores what advantages and disadvantages that counselors communicate about buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone.

Methods

From June to December 2021, we surveyed counselors from publicly-funded SUD treatment agencies under a municipality-wide mandate to offer MOUD to all clients with OUD. Counselors were asked to describe, in a free-response format, the most important advantages and disadvantages to communicate to their clients about taking buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. Counselor responses were coded for one or more advantage and disadvantage.

Results

A total of 271 SUD counselors from 29 agencies in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area completed the survey, generating 1,995 advantages and disadvantages across three types of MOUD. The most frequently reported advantage across all three types of MOUD was their ability to reduce cravings and illicit drug use. The most frequently reported disadvantage related to the potential for some types of MOUD to develop long-term medication dependence.

Conclusions

As the availability and variety of MOUD treatment options continue to expand, it is important that SUD counselors are equipped with evidence-based recommendations for OUD care. We identified misalignments with the MOUD-prescribing evidence base and stigmatizing language toward MOUD within counselors’ responses, highlighting the potential to refine training materials for MOUD and mitigate stigmatizing beliefs.

Background

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) including buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone are effective at reducing both opioid related and all-cause mortality [1]. Historically, the availability of MOUD has been limited by stringent regulations on treatment agencies. However, with the state-by-state removal of prior authorization requirements, culminating in the January 2023 federal removal, MOUD treatment capacity has increased in recent years [2, 3] and a number of efforts to increase buprenorphine capacity have shown success in certain local and state contexts [4,5,6,7]. As of 2020, an estimated 42% of the U.S. population live within a 10-mile radius of a treatment facility that offers the three main types of MOUD [8]. Although more available than ever, less than a third of people with OUD or active opioid use reported receiving MOUD in the past year [9] and many individuals discontinue MOUD within a few weeks of starting [10].

Stereotypes and stigma pervade the OUD treatment system and are considerable barriers to treatment engagement, quality care, and long-term health outcomes for people with OUD [11]. A form of stigma specific to the idea of using MOUD, called “intervention stigma” [12], has been documented across the OUD treatment continuum, including in reports from community pharmacists [13], counselors and peer recovery coaches in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities [14, 15], SUD treatment agency directors [16, 17], and OUD patients themselves [18]. MOUD stigma can present in different ways, such as via claims that MOUD encourages undesirable behaviors, is harmful to one’s physical or mental health, or is incompatible with “true” recovery [19].

Understanding how MOUD non-prescribing professionals, such as counselors, treat people with SUD is critical, as these professionals significantly influence client outcomes through their frequent interactions and guidance. Counselors often serve as the primary point of contact for clients, shaping their perceptions of and access to MOUD [20, 21]. Despite their pivotal role in helping people with OUD navigate recovery, little is known about how counselors discuss MOUD during client interactions [12]. To address this gap, we surveyed counselors from SUD treatment agencies in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area to explore how they communicate the advantages and disadvantages of buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone to their clients. These findings aim to inform efforts to reduce stigma and align counselor communication with the MOUD-prescribing evidence base, ultimately improving MOUD access and uptake.

Methods

Procedures

From June to December 2021, we surveyed staff of treatment agencies that serve Medicaid recipients with SUD in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area. These treatment agencies are reimbursed by Community Behavioral Health (CBH), the largest Medicaid payer for behavioral health in Philadelphia, and are mandated to provide MOUD to their clients with OUD [22]. In collaboration with CBH, we solicited participation from executive directors of (n = 49) agencies in the CBH network to distribute the survey to counselors, therapists, or any clinician who provides psychosocial support to individuals with OUD. Counselors were provided informed consent and completed the survey instrument online via REDCap, a secure, HIPAA-compliant web-based application for data collection and storage [23]. Respondents were sent a $25 Amazon gift card upon survey completion. Procedures were approved by the City of Philadelphia’s Institutional Review Board and all data were deidentified prior to analysis.

Survey

Counselors were asked, in a free-response format, to describe the most important advantage and disadvantage they discuss with clients for each of the three MOUD, buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. The prompt was designed for clarity, asking, “When discussing [medication name] with your client, what would be the most important advantage and disadvantage to mention?” After completing the survey, counselors completed a demographic questionnaire (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, education, years of experience, etc.). Agency directors provided information about the availability of each of the three medications at their agency [17].

Analysis

We employed thematic analysis methods [24] to code the advantages and disadvantages counselors reported for each medication. Two members of the authorship team (Author Initials, Author Initials) first collaboratively coded responses, resolving conflicts through discussion until satisfactory thematic saturation and agreement was reached. Missing responses (i.e. “I don’t know”, “not applicable”, “unintelligible”) were removed from the agreement analysis. The remaining responses were then independently coded and grouped, returning a kappa of 0.78 and 0.75 for advantages and disadvantages, respectively, indicating high inter-rater agreement [25].

Results

Sample characteristics

A total of 271 counselors completed the survey from 29 (59.1% agency response rate) distinct agencies who serve Medicaid recipients in Philadelphia. Five counselors could not be linked to an agency. Respondents were mostly identified as female, White, and had completed a bachelor’s degree (Table 1). The typical respondent had over a decade of professional experience and close to five years of experience at their current agency. Most respondents worked for agencies that dispensed or prescribed buprenorphine and naltrexone whereas only about half worked for agencies prescribe or dispensed methadone.

Table 1 Characteristics of participating counselors
Full size table

Advantages

There was a total of 1,055 reported advantages across the three types of MOUD from 250 respondents. Twenty-one counselors submitted blank responses and could not be coded for an advantage. There were 375 reported advantages from 245 respondents about buprenorphine, 335 advantages from 238 respondents about methadone, and 345 advantages from 234 respondents about naltrexone. Each advantage was coded into one of 28 themes (see Supplemental File 1).

Table 2 shows most the five most frequently reported advantages across the three types of MOUD: (1) reduces urges to use (42%), (2) reduces use of illegal opioids (37%), (3) flexibility (25%), (4) supports recovery lifestyle (20%), (5) reduces withdrawal symptoms (17%). Overall, the ability to reduce opioid cravings and use were the most frequently mentioned clinical benefits for all three types of MOUD. Other clinical effects mentioned include buprenorphine and methadone’s ability to reduce overdose risk and withdrawal symptoms, and naltrexone’s ability to block opioid receptors and prevent the sedative and euphoric effects associated of opioid use.

Table 2 Most prevalent advantages and illustrative excerpts
Full size table

Approximately a third of respondents mention the ability for buprenorphine and methadone to reduce the use of illicit substances, jumpstart treatment readiness, and support of a recovery lifestyle. A smaller share of counselors (20%) associated these qualities with naltrexone. Instead, counselors described the advantages of naltrexone’s monthly dosing cycle: flexibility, convenience, and less interference with daily life.

Disadvantages

There was a total of 940 reported disadvantages across the three types of MOUD from 245 respondents. Twenty-six counselors submitted blank responses and could not be coded for an advantage. There were 329 reported disadvantages from 239 respondents about buprenorphine, 353 disadvantages from 237 respondents about methadone, and 258 disadvantages from 218 respondents about naltrexone. Each disadvantage was coded into one of 26 themes (see Supplemental File 1).

Table 3 shows most the five most frequently reported disadvantages across the three types of MOUD: (1) it creates a long-term dependency (30%), (2) has harmful side effects (28%), (3) it is inconvenient (27%), (4) misuse potential (17%), (5) and difficult medication adherence (15%). Responses related to side effects frequently appeared for all three medications, including reports of cognitive and physical mal effects after taking buprenorphine or methadone and nausea or allergic reactions after a naltrexone administration. Notably, many counselors reported the tendency for buprenorphine and methadone to cause withdrawal symptoms which make it difficult for some clients to taper off.

Table 3 Most prevalent disadvantages and illustrative excerpts
Full size table

The main disadvantages that counselors communicated about buprenorphine and methadone related their “addictive” properties. The words “reliance”, “dependence”, “habit”, or “crutch” frequently appeared in counselor responses when describing buprenorphine and methadone. Many counselors expressed concerns about buprenorphine or methadone developing physical dependencies and the difficulty involved with weaning off the medications. In addition, counselors often described the inconvenience, stigma, and psychological attachment involved with daily dosing at a methadone clinic. Responses which mention the methadone clinic often included phrases like, “time consuming”, “schedule”, and “commitment”.

Counselors mentioned misuse potential (incl. “abuse potential”, “selling”, “mixing with other substances”, “use to get high”) in 24% of buprenorphine responses, 18% of methadone responses, and 7% of naltrexone responses. Counselors characterized MOUD misuse as selling or diverting buprenorphine and mixing methadone with other substances to achieve euphoric effects. The disadvantages counselors offered for naltrexone were primarily related to its unique properties, including the requirement of abstinence before being induced and the possibility the blocker will fail or wear off before the next dose could be administered.

Explicit stigma directed at the concept of using MOUD as an intervention for OUD were uncommon among respondents, but not absent. Phrases like “it’s substituting one drug for another” or “it’s still a drug” appeared in 18 (8%) responses for buprenorphine, 12 (5%) responses for methadone, and two (1%) responses for naltrexone.

Discussion

Our findings highlight how non-prescribing SUD treatment professionals, such as counselors, present MOUD to their clients, revealing a mix of evidence-based benefits and perceived drawbacks. Counselors frequently emphasized advantages like MOUD’s ability to reduce urges to use and support recovery. However, reported disadvantages—including buprenorphine’s misuse potential, methadone’s dosing burden, and naltrexone’s risk of failure due to its opioid-blocking properties—often diverged from the MOUD-prescribing evidence base [26, 27]. These inconsistencies point to a critical need for targeted education, training, and standardization to align counselors’ perceptions with evidence-based practices and ensure clients receive accurate, stigma-free information about MOUD options.

A research synthesis from the National Institute of Drugs and Alcohol (NIDA) equates the effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine at treating OUD in most treatment contexts [28]. In line with this evidence, the counselors in our sample equally praise the effectiveness of the two agonists. Yet, many respondents also claimed that the disadvantages of buprenorphine and methadone is that they can be sold or used to “get high.” The diversion risk (i.e. using medication for anything other than its intended purpose) of opioid agonists continues to be under debate. There is little evidence to support that diverted buprenorphine is primarily used for euphoric effects — several U.S. found that people with OUD who misuse their prescribed buprenorphine reported motivations ranging from self-treatment, pain-relief, to withdrawal symptoms management [29, 30].

Few respondents mentioned the diversion potential and overdose risk of methadone. Previous research has indicated that most overdose deaths involving methadone have occurred in populations that use methadone for pain relief, not OUD treatment [31]. Nonetheless, there has been a surge of scholarly interest and concern about the diversion risk of take-home methadone doses [31, 32]. The emerging evidence indicates that overdoses involving methadone decreased (not increased) among people with OUD in the U.S. after the onset of the pandemic [33, 34].

A recent NIDA report notes that naltrexone has little-to-no diversion risk and, as expected, diversion was not commonly communicated as a disadvantage from our respondents [35]. A number of respondents mentioned barriers associated with having to detox completely before being induced on naltrexone, echoing previous reports of patient experiences on extended-release naltrexone [36]. In general, respondents had less to say about naltrexone. Responses for naltrexone had the fewest number of codes extracted and substantially lower character counts than those for methadone and buprenorphine. This may be due to lack of familiarity and under-provision of naltrexone both locally and nationally [37]. Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2010, naltrexone has a shorter history than buprenorphine and methadone. Some evidence suggests that naltrexone may be stigmatized less than buprenorphine and methadone due pharmacological and regulatory differences [19]. Overall, our findings align with previous qualitative work with SUD counselors and supports the idea that MOUD stigma presents differently across MOUD types [20, 38].

Only a small number of respondents reported “explicit” forms of MOUD stigma (e.g. “it’s still a one drug for another”, “it’s still a drug”). However, a considerable share of responses contained language which implied that MOUD had addictive properties, harmful effects, or didn’t count as “clean time”. These misconceptions The DSM-V states that tolerance and withdrawal in the context of “appropriate medical treatment” is not considered criteria for substance use disorder [39]. Indeed, physical dependence alone is not among the criteria for a SUD diagnosis, evidence of negative consequences associated with continued is also required. These misconceptions are worrying in light of recent work in our system which shows an association between agency MOUD utilization and the endorsement of stigmatizing beliefs toward MOUD by agency leadership [17].

Encouragingly, MOUD stigma can be acted on. A series of recent randomized controlled trials to promote MOUD uptake include components that address MOUD stigma, such as facilitation collaboration with community-based treatment settings [40], implementation coaches [41], and local change teams [42]. The variability of responses in our study across counselors from one region support the potential effectiveness of training interventions that specifically focus and standardize how MOUD is presented to clients. A number of such MOUD trainings already exist, like the Providers Clinical Support System-Medications for Opioid Use Disorders [43]– however, they have not yet been tested to see if they reduce stigma among non-prescribing substance use treatment professionals. Our results also indicate the importance of tailoring destigmatization efforts to specific treatments [12] in order to provide people with OUD with all options for effective care. Future research should focus on shared decision-making models between counselors and clients and how they might be a lever to treatment success [44].

There are several limitations to the current investigation. Surveyed counselors self-reported how they discussed the advantages and disadvantages of medications, and while we sought to capture as many distinct codes as possible, there remains a risk of not fully detecting conceptual differences. Depending on individual client circumstances, what may be an advantage for one client may be a disadvantage for another. While designed to be broad, our survey prompt did not consider person-focused care or the suitability of medications across the recovery lifespan, such as how structural supports may be helpful early in treatment but burdensome later as clients transition out of treatment. Responses may also reflect counselors’ personal beliefs about MOUD rather than what they explicitly communicate to clients. Future investigations should address these limitations through independently coded recordings of counselor-client interactions to better capture the nuances of client-centered care and ensure alignment between counselors’ beliefs and their communication with clients.

In addition, there is a risk of non-response bias in our study. There is no comprehensive or published registry of SUD counselors within our system, so our sample was derived from a convenience selection of counselors spanning as many agencies as possible. Although three reminders were sent during recruitment, we lack information about non-responding counselors, making it unclear whether those who participated differed meaningfully from those who did not. Among respondents, it’s apparent that availability and administration of buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone vary greatly across provider agencies. Consequently, counselors’ familiarity with specific forms of each medication (oral, sublingual, or injectable) may influence their perceived advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, our sample was geographically limited to one large urban area, which may not reflect patterns in other regions of the United States, especially where abstinence-oriented treatment facilities are more common, and exposure to MOUD may be limited [20]. Pennsylvania licensure requirements are among the most stringent for both undergraduate and graduate-level SUD counselors and state-level differences in training requirements for substance use disorder counselors further contribute to the variability in counselor knowledge and experiences with MOUD [45, 46]. Lastly, the rapid evolution of the opioid crisis, including the proliferation of synthetic opioids and the impact of COVID-19 related disruptions on SUD treatment, may have introduced new advantages and disadvantages to buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone which our study was unable to capture.

Despite these limitations, we believe our findings provide valuable insights into counselor perceptions of MOUD. They may help agency leaders anticipate and address stigma when implementing MOUD programs, ultimately supporting efforts to improve client access to and outcomes with evidence-based treatment options.

Conclusions

There have been dramatic changes to the OUD treatment landscape in the last decade and the term “MOUD” encompasses a variety of medications, each with their own pharmacological properties, drawbacks, and associated stigma. New treatment options, shifting post-pandemic treatment regulations, and changes to the street drug supply have added additional complexity. SUD treatment counselors play an important role in OUD treatment and we show that the advantages and disadvantages counselors communicate vary across buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone and are inconsistent with the MOUD-prescribing evidence base. Our study highlights the need for ongoing education, training, and standardization around MOUD for non-prescribing SUD treatment professionals.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

OUD:

Opioid Use Disorder

MOUD:

Medications for Opioid Use Disorder

SUD:

Substance Use Disorder

CBH:

Community Behavioral Health

References

  1. Larochelle MR, Bernson D, Land T, Stopka TJ, Wang N, Xuan Z, et al. Medication for opioid Use Disorder after Nonfatal Opioid Overdose and Association with Mortality: a Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(3):137.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Gordon AJ, Kenny M, Dungan M, Gustavson AM, Kelley AT, Jones AL, et al. Are x-waiver trainings enough? Facilitators and barriers to buprenorphine prescribing after x‐waiver trainings. Am J Addict. 2022;31(2):152–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andrilla CHA, Patterson DG. Tracking the geographic distribution and growth of clinicians with a DEA waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder. J Rural Health. 2022;38(1):87–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Darfler K, Sandoval J, Pearce Antonini V, Urada D. Preliminary results of the evaluation of the California Hub and spoke Program. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2020;108:26–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Caton L, Shen H, Miele GM, Darfler K, Sandoval JR, Urada D, et al. Opening the black box: four common implementation strategies for expanding the use of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care. Implement Res Pract. 2021;2:263348952110058.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brooklyn JR, Sigmon SC. Vermont hub-and-spoke model of Care for Opioid Use Disorder: development, implementation, and impact. J Addict Med. 2017;11(4):286–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Reif S, Brolin MF, Stewart MT, Fuchs TJ, Speaker E, Mazel SB. The Washington State Hub and Spoke Model to increase access to medication treatment for opioid use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2020;108:33–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cantor J, Powell D, Kofner A, Stein BD. Population-based estimates of geographic accessibility of medication for opioid use disorder by substance use disorder treatment facilities from 2014 to 2020. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;229:109107.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mauro PM, Gutkind S, Annunziato EM, Samples H. Use of Medication for Opioid Use Disorder among US adolescents and adults with need for Opioid Treatment, 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e223821.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Krawczyk N, Fawole A, Yang J, Tofighi B. Early innovations in opioid use disorder treatment and harm reduction during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2021;16(1):68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cernasev A, Hohmeier KC, Frederick K, Jasmin H, Gatwood J. A systematic literature review of patient perspectives of barriers and facilitators to access, adherence, stigma, and persistence to treatment for substance use disorder. Exploratory Res Clin Social Pharm. 2021;2:100029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Madden EF, Prevedel S, Light T, Sulzer SH. Intervention stigma toward medications for opioid use disorder: a systematic review. Subst Use Misuse. 2021;56(14):2181–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chaar BB, Wang H, Day CA, Hanrahan JR, Winstock AR, Fois R. Factors influencing pharmacy services in opioid substitution treatment: factors influencing OST in pharmacy. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2013;32(4):426–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Knudsen HK, Ducharme LJ, Roman PM, Link T. Buprenorphine diffusion: the attitudes of substance abuse treatment counselors. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005;29(2):95–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pasman E, O’Shay S, Brown S, Madden EF, Agius E, Resko SM. Ambivalence and contingencies: a qualitative examination of peer recovery coaches’ attitudes toward medications for opioid use disorder. J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2023;155:209121.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stewart RE, Shen L, Kwon N, Vigderman J, Kramer S, Mandell DS, et al. Transporting to treatment: evaluating the effectiveness of a mobile engagement unit. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;129:108377.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stewart RE, Cardamone NC, Mandell DS, Kwon N, Kampman KM, Knudsen HK, et al. Not in my treatment center: Leadership’s perception of barriers to MOUD adoption. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2023;144:108900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sanders JJ, Roose RJ, Lubrano MC, Lucan SC. Meaning and Methadone: patient perceptions of Methadone Dose and a model to promote adherence to maintenance treatment. J Addict Med. 2013;7(5):307–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Madden EF, Barker KK, Guerra J, Villanueva C, Sulzer SH. Variation in intervention stigma among medications for opioid use disorder. SSM - Qualitative Res Health. 2022;2:100161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown AR, Walters JE, Harmer B, Cates L, Jones AE. Non-prescribing clinicians’ treatment orientations and attitudes toward treatments for opioid use disorder: rural differences. J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2023;155:209153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Santa Ana EJ, Martino S, Ball SA, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Carroll KM. What is usual about treatment-as-usual? Data from two multisite effectiveness trials. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;35(4):369–79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services. Provider Bulletin # 18– 07 Community Behavioral Health Requirement for All Crisis Response Centers (CRCs) and Drug and Alcohol Licensed Providers to Establish Protocols to Assist Individuals in Accessing Evidence-Based Treatment, Including Medication-Assisted Treatment [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://dbhids.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Provider-Bulletin-18-07-All-CRCs-and-Drug-and-Alcohol-Licensed-Providers-Will-Establish-Protocols-to-Assist-Individuals-in-Accessing-MAT-FINAL2-amended2-1.pdf

  23. Harris, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42(2):377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ, editors. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological [Internet]. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2012 [cited 2023 Aug 14]. pp. 57–71. Available from: http://content.apa.org/books/13620-004

  25. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bell J, Strang J. Medication treatment of opioid Use Disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;87(1):82–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Committee on Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Health and Medicine Division, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Save Lives [Internet]. Leshner AI, Mancher M, editors. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 2019 [cited 2022 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25310

  28. NIDA. How effective are medications to treat opioid use disorder? [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/medications-to-treat-opioid-addiction/efficacy-medications-opioid-use-disorder

  29. Chilcoat HD, Amick HR, Sherwood MR, Dunn KE. Buprenorphine in the United States: motives for abuse, misuse, and diversion. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2019;104:148–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rubel SK, Eisenstat M, Wolff J, Calevski M, Mital S. Scope of, motivations for, and outcomes Associated with Buprenorphine Diversion in the United States: a scoping review. Subst Use Misuse. 2023;58(5):685–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Jones CM, Compton WM, Han B, Baldwin G, Volkow ND. Methadone-involved overdose deaths in the US before and after Federal Policy Changes Expanding take-home methadone doses from Opioid Treatment Programs. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79(9):932.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Harris MTH, Lambert AM, Maschke AD, Bagley SM, Walley AY, Gunn CM. No home to take methadone to: experiences with addiction services during the COVID-19 pandemic among survivors of opioid overdose in Boston. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2022;135:108655.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brothers S, Viera A, Heimer R. Changes in methadone program practices and fatal methadone overdose rates in Connecticut during COVID-19. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;131:108449.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Harris RA, Long JA, Bao Y, Mandell DS. Racial, ethnic, and sex differences in Methadone-Involved Overdose Deaths before and after the US Federal Policy Change Expanding take-home methadone doses. JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(6):e231235.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. NIDA. What is the treatment need versus the diversion risk for opioid use disorder treatment? [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/medications-to-treat-opioid-addiction/what-treatment-need-versus-diversion-risk-opioid-use-disorder-treatment

  36. Gauthier P, Greco P, Meyers-Ohki S, Desai A, Rotrosen J. Patients’ perspectives on initiating treatment with extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX). J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;122:108183.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stewart RE, Cardamone NC, Altman CA, Bowen J, Mandell DS. MOUD Adoption among clients of Organizations that provide MOUD or coordinate Care with External Providers. PS. 2024;appi.ps.20230522.

  38. Dickson-Gomez J, Spector A, Weeks M, Galletly C, McDonald M, Green Montaque HD. You’re not supposed to be on it forever: medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) related Stigma among Drug Treatment providers and people who use opioids. Substance Abuse. 2022;16:117822182211038.

    Google Scholar 

  39. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [Internet]. Fifth Edition. American Psychiatric Association. 2013 [cited 2024 Apr 3]. Available from: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

  40. Friedmann PD, Wilson D, Knudsen HK, Ducharme LJ, Welsh WN, Frisman L, et al. Effect of an organizational linkage intervention on staff perceptions of medication-assisted treatment and referral intentions in Community corrections. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2015;50:50–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Molfenter T, Kim H, Kim JS, Kisicki A, Knudsen HK, Horst J, et al. Enhancing Use of medications for Opioid Use Disorder through External Coaching. PS. 2023;74(3):265–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Martin RA, Stein LaR, Rohsenow DJ, Belenko S, Hurley LE, Clarke JG et al. Using implementation interventions and peer recovery support to improve opioid treatment outcomes in community supervision: protocol. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;108364–108364.

  43. Providers Clinical Support System. -Medications for Opioid Use Disorders [Internet]. [cited 2024 Dec 10]. Providers Clinical Support System. Available from: https://pcssnow.org/about/

  44. Monico LB, Fletcher JB, Ross T, Schwartz RP, Fishman MJ, Gryczynski J et al. Patient and provider medication preferences affect treatment outcomes among adolescents and young adults with opioid use disorder. J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2024;209334.

  45. Beck AJ, Page C, Buche J, Rittman D, Gaiser M. Scopes of practice and reimbursement patterns of addiction counselors, community health workers, and peer recovery specialists in the behavioral health workforce [Internet]. Behavioral Health Workforce Research Center, University of Michigan School of Public Health; 2018. Available from: https://www.healthworkforceta.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/BHWRC_SOPs.pdf

  46. Kerwin ME, Walker-Smith K, Kirby KC. Comparative analysis of state requirements for the training of substance abuse and mental health counselors. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006;30(3):173–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Research reported in this article was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (award K23DA048167).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Nicholas C. Cardamone, Rebecca E. Stewart & Kyle M. Kampman

  2. School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Steven C. Marcus

Authors
  1. Nicholas C. Cardamone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca E. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyle M. Kampman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steven C. Marcus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.C. led the data collection efforts and curated data for initial use and future reuse; led data analysis and preparation of the initial draft of the manuscript. R.S., as Principal Investigator, formulated the overarching research goals and aims and reviewed and edited the manuscript. K.K. provided critical feedback during the manuscript review process, contributing to the refinement and clarity of the final publication. S.M. contributed to the initial conceptualization of the study, providing essential ideas that shaped the research objectives, reviewed the manuscript, and refined the manuscript’s content and presentation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas C. Cardamone.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The institutional review boards of the University of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia approved the study procedures.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cardamone, N.C., Stewart, R.E., Kampman, K.M. et al. Perspectives of substance use disorder counselors on the benefits and drawbacks of medications for opioid use disorder. Addict Sci Clin Pract 20, 7 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13722-025-00537-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13722-025-00537-2

Keywords

Addiction Science & Clinical Practice

ISSN: 1940-0640