Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of logistic regression of buprenorphine adoption on facility and state characteristics

From: State policy influence on the early diffusion of buprenorphine in community treatment programs

  B 95% CI OR
Ownership/Profit Status a    
Government owned -.457* (-.833, -.082) .63
Private, non-profit -.605** (-.827, -.384) .55
Facility Characteristics    
Based in a hospital .671** (.411, .931) 1.96
Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) .696** (.276, 1.115) 2.00
SA treatment is primary focus .014 (-.332, .359)  
Offers detox 1.959** (1.545, 2.374) 7.09
Outpatient only -.186* (-.343, -.028) .83
Adolescent program -1.123** (-1.667, -.581) .33
Accredited .307** (.114, .500) 1.36
Past-year admissions .0002** (.0001, .0003) 1.00
Located in a metropolitan area .541** (.243, .838) 1.72
Key Funding Sources    
Receives government funds -.306** (-.515, -.098) .74
Accepts Medicaid .175 (-.110, .460)  
Has managed care contract(s) .472** (.280, .665) 1.60
State-Level Variables    
SSA encourages use of buprenorphine .171 (-.098, .440)  
Medicaid covers buprenorphine .081* (.011, .152) 1.09
McKelvey & Zavonia's R2 .364   
Model chisq (df) p 778.51 (16) p < .001   
  1. N = 10,410. B = standardized coefficient; CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio (shown only for significant predictors).
  2. aReference category is for-profit treatment programs.
  3. *p < .05, **p < .01