A scoping literature review of pharmacy-based opioid misuse screening and brief interventions

Patient and pharmacist perspectives on opioid misuse screening and brief interventions in community pharmacies

BACKGROUND

Pharmacy-based screening and brief interventions (SBI) offer opportunities to identify opioid misuse and opioid safety risks and provide brief interventions that do not overly burden pharmacists. Currently, such interventions are being developed without patient input and in-depth contextual data and insufficient translation into practice. The purpose of this study is to qualitatively explore and compare patient and pharmacist perceptions and needs regarding a pharmacy-based opioid misuse SBI and to identify relevant SBI features and future implementation strategies.

METHODS

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 8 patients and 11 pharmacists, to explore needs and barriers to participating in a pharmacy-based SBI. We recruited a purposive sample of English-speaking patients prescribed opioids for chronic or acute pain and pharmacists practicing in varied pharmacies (small independent, large-chain, specialty retail) settings. We used an inductive content analysis approach to analyze patient interview data. Then through a template analysis approach involving comparison of pharmacist and patient themes, we developed strategies for SBI implementation.

RESULTS

Most patient participants were white, older, described living in suburban areas, and were long-term opioid users. We identified template themes related to individual, interpersonal, intervention, and implementation factors and inferred applications for SBI design or potential SBI implementation strategies. We found that patients needed education on opioid safety and general opioid use, regardless of opioid use behaviors. Pharmacists described needing patient-centered training, protocols, and scripts to provide SBI. A short-self-reported screening and brief interventions including counseling, naloxone, and involving prescribers were discussed by both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this implementation-focused qualitative study, we identified patient needs such as opioid safety education delivered in a private and convenient format and pharmacist needs including training, workflow integration, protocols, and a time-efficient intervention for effective pharmacy-based SBI. Alternate formats of SBI using digital health technologies may be needed for effective implementation. Our findings can be used to develop patient-centered pharmacy-based SBI that can be implemented within actual pharmacy practice.

Development and validation of a brief screening tool for over-the-counter codeine dependence

BACKGROUND

Low-dose codeine is sold without a prescription in countries like the UK, Ireland, and South Africa. Due to misuse concerns, exploring pharmacy screening tools to identify those at risk and needing additional support is vital.

OBJECTIVES

The study aims to develop and validate a brief screening tool that assesses the risk of codeine dependence with language appropriate for routine use in community pharmacies.

METHOD

Scale development and validation occurred over two studies. In Study 1, scale item generation was based on structured analyses of psychosocial and pharmacy variables from frequent over-the-counter codeine consumers (N = 795). CFA was used to assess the cohesiveness of the resultant four-item Codeine Dependence Scale (CDS). ROC analyses were used to assess the performance of the CDS against risk cases identified by the Severity of Dependence Scale; identifying an optimal cut-off value of ≥2 as representing individuals at risk of codeine dependence. In Study 2, this CDS threshold was assessed against positive DSM-5 Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) cases related to codeine use assessed using the AUDADIS-IV.

RESULTS

With a cut-off score of ≥2, the CDS has sensitivity and specificity of 76% and 48%, respectively, against a DSM-5 codeine-related OUD diagnosis using the AUDADIS-IV. For identification of any codeine-related OUD (as measured by the AUDADIS-IV) 15 months after baseline, the CDS achieved an overall correct classification rate of 52%; 72% for positive cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The CDS exhibits reasonable cross-sectional and longitudinal sensitivity but low specificity, partly due to its brevity. However, the inclusive nature of the CDS is not a negative for application as a screening tool in a pharmacy setting as individual CDS items represent critical conversation points with a pharmacist, regardless of the screening outcome. The non-confronting nature of CDS items make the scale a viable option for pharmacy-based SBI in countries where codeine remains OTC.