Table 3.
Station‐level results of the fixed effects negative binomial regression models by patient populations, September 2014 to December 2017
| Predictor of interest | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative binomial unconditional (Opioid population) | Negative binomial unconditional (High‐risk population) | Negative binomial unconditional (MEDD 50 population) | Negative binomial unconditional (RIOSORD Class > 5 population) | Negative binomial unconditional (OUD population) | Negative binomial unconditional (Methadone population) | |
| N | 5200 | 5200 | 5200 | 5200 | 5197 | 5156 |
| Unadjusted model | ||||||
| Proportion of providers exposed to academic detailing | 4.92** (2.43, 9.99) | 5.24** (2.82, 9.74) | 5.16** (2.85, 9.31) | 6.02** (2.58, 14.07) | 4.12** (2.42, 7.03) | 3.42** (1.73, 6.75) |
| Adjusted modela | ||||||
| Proportion of providers exposed to academic detailing | 5.52* (1.87, 16.27) | 4.73* (1.73, 12.93) | 4.49* (1.58, 12.75) | 4.22* (1.16, 15.29) | 2.35 (0.88, 6.26) | 3.93 (0.93, 16.66) |
Results are presented as incident rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
aModels adjusted for time‐varying covariates (number of outpatient visits, number of emergency department and urgent care visits, number of inpatient admissions, and number of prescriptions released).
*P < 0.05, P < 0.01.
**P < 0.001.