Exploring perspectives on changing opioid prescribing practices: A qualitative study of community stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study

Determinants of successful opioid deprescribing: Insights from French pain physicians-A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Long-term use of opioids does not result in significant clinical improvement and has shown more adverse than beneficial effects in chronic pain conditions. When opioids cause more adverse effects than benefits for the patient, it may be necessary to initiate a process of deprescribing.

AIM

To explore the perceptions of French pain physicians regarding the process of opioid deprescribing in patients experiencing chronic non-cancer and to generate an understanding of the barriers and levers to the deprescribing process.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentric observational study with qualitative approach. Individual semi-structured interviews exploring pain physicians' perceptions, beliefs, and representations to assess the determinants of opioid deprescribing with an interview guide were used. After checking the transcripts, an inductive and independent thematic analysis of the interviews was to extract meaningful themes from the dataset.

RESULTS

Twelve pain physicians were interviewed. The main obstacles to deprescribing revolved around patient-specific attributes, characteristics of the opioids themselves, and limitations within the current healthcare system, that hinder optimal patient management. Conversely, patient motivation and education, recourse to hospitalization in a Pain Department with multidisciplinary care, follow-up by the general practitioner, and training and information dissemination among patients and clinicians emerged as facilitative elements for opioid deprescribing.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the needs to improve the training of healthcare professionals, the effective communication of pertinent information to patients, and the establishment of a therapeutic partnership with the patient. It is therefore essential to carry out the deprescribing process in a collaborative and interprofessional manner, encompassing both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical strategies.

Perceptions of disposal options for unused opioid analgesics among people who have been prescribed an opioid analgesic in North Carolina

Background: Medication disposal programs have been promoted as one solution to the opioid crisis, but uptake by community members has been minimal.Objectives: To clarify perceptions of medication disposal options among people who have been prescribed an opioid analgesic in North Carolina to inform interventions that can facilitate the disposal of unused opioids.Methods: In 2022, we conducted focus groups with participants who received an opioid medication in the past year to gain information to develop an intervention related to the disposal of unused opioid medication (12 focus group discussions (FGDs); total N = 37; 30 identified as female, 6 as male, and 1 as another gender). Participants were shown a slide with the Food and Drug Administration's recommended disposal options and asked about their perceptions of each option. Themes were derived using an inductive, thematic, qualitative approach.Results: Seven themes about perceptions of medication disposal programs emerged from the data. Four of the themes reflect potential barriers to medication disposal: failed disposal attempts, lack of sufficient education on proper disposal, unclear meaning of specific disposal language, and concerns about existing disposal options. Three of the themes provide insight on potential facilitators of medication disposal: preference of low-cost disposal options, ease and accessibility among disposal methods, and preferred disposal methods.Conclusion: Patients should be provided clear and consistent guidance from prescribers and dispensing pharmacists on when and how to dispose of unused medications and opportunities to dispose of medications at no cost to the patient.

Relationship between facility number of clinicians and prescribing intensity of psychotropic medications, opioids, and antibiotics in ambulatory practice

BACKGROUND

Promoting appropriate pharmacotherapy requires understanding the factors that influence how clinicians prescribe medications. While prior work has focused on patient and clinician factors, features of the organizational setting have received less attention, though identifying sources of variation in prescribing may help identify opportunities to improve patient safety and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between the number of clinicians who prescribe medications in a facility and facility prescribing intensity of six individual medication classes by clinician specialty: benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, and antidepressants by psychiatrists and antibiotics, opioids, antiepileptics, and antidepressants by primary care clinicians (PCPs).

DESIGN

We used 2017 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) administrative data.

SUBJECTS

We included patient-clinician dyads of older patients (> 55 years) with an outpatient encounter with a clinician in 2017. Patient-clinician data from 140 VHA facilities were included (n = 13,347,658). Analysis was repeated for years 2014 to 2016.

MAIN MEASURES

For each medication, facility prescribing intensity measures were calculated as clinician prescribing intensity averaged over all clinicians at each facility. Clinician prescribing intensity measures included percentage of each clinician's patients prescribed the medication and mean number of days supply per patient among all patients of each clinician.

KEY RESULTS

As the number of prescribing clinicians in a facility increased, the intensity of prescribing decreased. Every increase of 10 facility clinicians was associated with a significant decline in prescribing intensity for both specialties for different medication classes: for psychiatrists, declines ranged from 6 to 11%, and for PCPs, from 2 to 3%. The pattern of more clinicians less prescribing was significant across all years.

CONCLUSION

Future work should explore the mechanisms that link the number of facility clinicians with prescribing intensity for benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, antidepressants, antibiotics, and opioids. Facilities with fewer clinicians may need additional resources to avoid unwanted prescribing of potentially harmful or unnecessary medications.

Association of a State Prescribing Limits Policy with Opioid Prescribing and Long-term Use: an Interrupted Time Series Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prescription opioids were a major initial driver of the opioid crisis. States have attempted to reduce overprescribing by enacting policies that limit opioid prescriptions, but the impacts of such policies on new prescribing and subsequent transitions to long-term use are not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of implementation of a state prescribing limits policy with opioid prescribing and transitions to long-term opioid use.

DESIGN

Interrupted time series analyses assessing trends in new opioid prescriptions and long-term use before and after policy implementation.

PATIENTS

A total of 130,591 New Jersey Medicaid enrollees ages 18-64 who received an initial opioid prescription from January 2014 to December 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

New Jersey's opioid prescribing limit policy implemented in March 2017.

MAIN MEASURES

Total new opioid prescriptions, percentage of new prescriptions with >5 days' supply, and transition to long-term opioid use, defined as having opioid supply on day 90 after the initial prescription.

KEY RESULTS

Policy implementation was associated with a significant monthly increase in new opioid prescriptions of 0.86 per 10,000 enrollees, halving the pre-policy decline in the prescribing rate. Among new opioid prescriptions, the percentage with >5 days' supply decreased by about 1 percentage point (-0.76 percentage points, 95% CI -0.89, -0.62) following policy implementation. However, policy implementation was associated with a significant monthly increase in the rate of initial prescriptions with supply on day 90 (9.95 per 10,000 new prescriptions, 95% CI 4.80, 15.11) that reversed the downward pre-implementation trend.

CONCLUSIONS

The New Jersey policy was associated with a reduction in initial prescriptions with >5 days' supply, but not with an overall decline in new opioid prescriptions or in the rate at which initial prescriptions led to long-term use. Given their only modest benefits, policymakers and clinicians should carefully weigh potential unintended consequences of strict prescribing limits.

Characterizing modifications to a comparative effectiveness research study: the OPTIMIZE trial-using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Interventions (FRAME)

BACKGROUND

The OPTIMIZE trial is a multi-site, comparative effectiveness research (CER) study that uses a Sequential Multiple Assessment Randomized Trial (SMART) designed to examine the effectiveness of complex health interventions (cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and mindfulness) for adults with chronic low back pain. Modifications are anticipated when implementing complex interventions in CER. Disruptions due to COVID have created unanticipated challenges also requiring modifications. Recent methodologic standards for CER studies emphasize that fully characterizing modifications made is necessary to interpret and implement trial results. The purpose of this paper is to outline the modifications made to the OPTIMIZE trial using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Interventions (FRAME) to characterize modifications to the OPTIMIZE trial in response to the COVID pandemic and other challenges encountered.

METHODS

The FRAME outlines a strategy to identify and report modifications to evidence-based interventions or implementation strategies, whether planned or unplanned. We use the FRAME to characterize the process used to modify the aspects of the OPTIMIZE trial. Modifications were made to improve lower-than-anticipated rates of treatment initiation and COVID-related restrictions. Contextual modifications were made to permit telehealth delivery of treatments originally designed for in-person delivery. Training modifications were made with study personnel to provide more detailed information to potential participants, use motivational interviewing communication techniques to clarify potential participants' motivation and possible barriers to initiating treatment, and provide greater assistance with scheduling of assigned treatments.

RESULTS

Modifications were developed with input from the trial's patient and stakeholder advisory panels. The goals of the modifications were to improve trial feasibility without compromising the interventions' core functions. Modifications were approved by the study funder and the trial steering committee.

CONCLUSIONS

Full and transparent reporting of modifications to clinical trials, whether planned or unplanned, is critical for interpreting the trial's eventual results and considering future implementation efforts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03859713. Registered on March 1, 2019.

Embedding Big Qual and Team Science into Qualitative Research: Lessons from a Large-scale, Cross-site Research Study

Background

A major part of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS), launched in 2019 to address the growing opioid epidemic, is evaluating the study's intervention implementation process through an implementation science (IS) approach. One component of the IS approach involves teams with more than 20 researchers collaborating across four research sites to conduct in-depth qualitative interviews with over 300 participants at four time points. After completion of the first two rounds of data collection, we reflect upon our qualitative data collection and analysis approach. We aim to share our lessons learned about designing and applying qualitative methods within an implementation science framework.

Methods

The HCS evaluation is based on the RE-AIM/PRISM framework and incorporates interviews at four timepoints. At each timepoint, the core qualitative team of the Intervention Work Group drafts an interview guide based on the framework and insights from previous round(s) of data collection. Researchers then conduct interviews with key informants and coalition members within their respective states. Data analysis involves drafting, iteratively refining, and finalizing a codebook in a cross-site and within-site consensus processes. Interview transcripts are then individually coded by researchers within their respective states.

Results

Successes in the evaluation process includes having structured procedures for communication, data collection, and analysis, all of which are critical for ensuring consistent data collection and for achieving consensus during data analysis. Challenges include recognizing and accommodating the diversity of training and knowledge between researchers, and establishing reliable ways to securely store, manage, and share the large volumes of data.

Conclusion

Qualitative methods using a team science approach have been limited in their application in large, multi-site randomized controlled trials of health interventions. Our experience provides practical guidance for future studies with large, experientially and disciplinarily diverse teams, and teams seeking to incorporate qualitative or mixed-methods components for their evaluations.

Assessing the Impact of Indiana Public Law 194 on Curbing the Concurrent Opioid Prescribing for Indiana Medicaid Enrollees

Background

Several US states have introduced legislation to support the legitimate medical use of opioids while limiting misuse and diversion. One concern which has been addressed through legislation is preventing individuals from seeking opioid prescriptions concurrently from multiple providers. However, the impact of this legislation on the incidence of patients receiving concurrent prescriptions remains relatively unexplored. This study examines this phenomenon based on claims data from Medicaid enrollees and the enactment of legislation in Indiana.

Methods

Indiana Medicaid claims data over the period of January 2014 to December 2019 were used to determine the changes in the percentage of individuals receiving opioid prescriptions from multiple providers within a 30-day period, that is, concurrent opioid prescription (COP) individuals. Indiana Medicaid enrollees with a diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD) receiving opioid prescriptions, that is, the OUD-group, were identified and separated from the enrollees without a diagnosis but receiving opioid prescriptions, that is, the non-OUD group. The mean percentages of COP individuals (with or without an OUD diagnosis) within the subset of individuals that received opioid prescriptions were compared before and after the passage of Indiana Public Law 194.

Results

There were 5336 who met the criteria of COP individuals, and 2050 of those were in the OUD-group. In either group, there was a significant difference in the change in percentages (slope) before and after Indiana Public Law 194 passed. In addition, there was a significant decrease in the mean percentage of COP individuals in the non-OUD group, while the difference was not significant in the OUD group.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that Indiana Public Law 194 had a positive impact on curbing COP. This study is limited by the level of details available from claims data and suggests additional studies to evaluate prescription use and prescribing practices are warranted.