Understanding the behavioural determinants of opioid prescribing among family physicians: a qualitative study

Examining inequities in access to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) take-home doses (THD): A Canadian OAT guideline synthesis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Daily supervised Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) medication has been identified as a barrier to treatment retention. Canadian OAT guidelines outline take-home dose (THD) criteria, yet, OAT prescribers use their clinical judgement to decide whether an individual is 'clinically stable' to receive THD. There is limited information regarding whether these decisions may result in inequitable access to THD, including in the context of updated COVID-19 guidance. The current Canadian OAT THD guideline synthesis and systematic review aimed to address this knowledge gap.

METHODS

This systematic review included a two-pronged approach. First, we searched available academic literature in Embase, Medline, and PsychINFO up until October 12th, 2022, to identify studies that compared characteristics of individuals on OAT who had and had not been granted access to THD to explore potential inequities in access. Next, we identified all Canadian national and provincial OAT guidelines through a semi-structured grey literature search (conducted between September-October 2022) and extracted all THD 'stability' and allowances/timeline criteria to compare against characteristics identified in the literature search. Data from both review arms were synthesized and narratively presented.

RESULTS

A total of n = 56 guidelines and n = 7 academic studies were included. The systematic review identified a number of patient characteristics such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, housing, employment, neighborhood income, drug use, mental health, health service utilization, as well as treatment duration that were associated with differential access to THD. The Canadian OAT THD guideline synthesis identified many of these same characteristics as 'stability' criteria, underscoring the potential for Canadian OAT guidelines to result in inequitable access to THD.

CONCLUSIONS

This two-pronged literature review demonstrated that current guidelines likely contribute to inequitable OAT THD access due primarily to inconsistent 'stability' criteria across guidelines. More research is needed to understand differential OAT THD access with a focus on prescriber decision-making and evaluating associated treatment and safety outcomes. The development of a client-centered, equity-focused, and evidence-informed decision making framework that incorporates more clear definitions of 'stability' criteria and indications for prescriber discretion is warranted.

Behavioral Science: Enhancing Our Approach to the Development of Effective Additional Risk Minimization Strategies

Additional risk minimization strategies may be required to assure a positive benefit-risk balance for some therapeutic products associated with serious adverse drug reactions/risks of use, without which these products may be otherwise unavailable to patients. The goals of risk minimization strategies are often fundamentally to influence the behavior of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and/or patients and can include appropriate patient selection, provision of education and counselling, appropriate medication use, adverse drug reaction monitoring, and adoption of other elements to assure safe use, such as pregnancy prevention. Current approaches to additional risk minimization strategy development rely heavily on information provision, without full consideration of the contextual factors and multi-level influences on patient and HCP behaviors that impact adoption and long-term adherence to these interventions. Application of evidence-based behavioral science methods are urgently needed to improve the quality and effectiveness of these strategies. Evidence from the fields of adherence, health promotion, and drug utilization research underscores the value and necessity for using established behavioral science frameworks and methods if we are to achieve clinical safety goals for patients. The current paper aims to enhance additional risk minimization strategy development and effectiveness by considering how a behavioral science approach can be applied, drawing from evidence in understanding of engagement with pharmaceutical medicines as well as wider public health interventions for patients and HCPs.

Exploring the facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing for non-cancer pain treatment experienced by general practitioners: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend opioid deprescribing in patients on long-term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain. This study aims to explore facilitators and barriers in opioid deprescribing among general practitioners in the Netherlands. In addition, this study aims to identify possibilities for improvement regarding opioid deprescribing in primary care.

METHODS

Focus group discussions with Dutch General practitioners were held by two skilled moderators. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using MAXQDA software. Three independent reviewers searched for overarching themes using thematic analysis with an inductive approach. Discussions were organized until data saturation was reached.

RESULTS

Twenty-two general practitioners participated in four focus group discussions. Five main themes emerged from the data: (1) patient-centred care; (2) ensuring proper pain management (3) dilemmas and hardships in dealing with opioid use disorder; (4) the competency gap; (5) needs and possibilities to improve opioid deprescribing in primary care. The first theme addresses the main facilitators in opioid tapering. The following three themes emerged as main barriers in opioid deprescribing. The fifth theme identified possibilities for change.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates the importance of intrinsic motivation and a tailored approach to deprescribe opioids in patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. Identified barriers include struggles in pain management, challenges caused by opioid use disorder, insufficient capacities such as time constraints and lack of skills. Recommendations for improvement involve enhanced collaboration with healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care, provision of practical tools and assurance of sufficient time.

SIGNIFICANCE

This focus group study among 22 Dutch general practitioners elucidates the complexities of opioid deprescribing and reveals pivotal themes such as patient-centred care, pain management challenges, and competency gaps. The findings underscore the crucial role of intrinsic motivation and that of a tailored approach in opioid deprescribing, while demonstrating how a lack in effective pain treatments, practical capacities and challenges caused by opioid dependence, impede opioid deprescribing. By uncovering these complexities, this study aims to inform future deprescribing strategies.

Opioid Treatment in Primary Care: Knowledge and Practical Use of Opioid Therapy

BACKGROUND

Primary care physicians play a key role in initiating opioid therapy. However, knowledge gaps in opioid use and pain management are significant barriers to providing optimal care. This research study aims to investigate the educational needs of primary care physicians regarding opioid therapy and opioid use in pain management.

METHODS

A computer-assisted web interview (CAWI) protocol was used to collect data from primary care physicians. Drug selection criteria, knowledge of opioid substitutes and dosage, and practical use of opioid therapy were evaluated.

RESULTS

While 84% of participating physicians (724 respondents) reported initiating opioid treatment, only a minority demonstrated accurate opioid dosage calculations. Significant discrepancies between physicians' self-perceived knowledge and their clinical skills in opioid prescribing and pain management were observed. In total, 41% of physicians incorrectly indicated dose conversion rates for tramadol (the most frequently used drug according to 65% of responders).

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted educational programs are essential to bridge the knowledge gap and increase physicians' competence in pain management. The proper self-assessment of one's own skills may be the key to improvement. Further research should focus on developing specialized educational courses and decision-support tools for primary care physicians and examining the impact of interprofessional pain management teams on patient outcomes.

Experiences and Outcomes of Using e-Prescribing for Opioids: Rapid Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

e-Prescribing is designed to assist in facilitating safe and appropriate prescriptions for patients. Currently, it is unknown to what extent e-prescribing for opioids influences experiences and outcomes. To address this gap, a rapid scoping review was conducted.

OBJECTIVE

This rapid scoping review aims to (1) explore how e-prescribing has been used clinically; (2) examine the effects of e-prescribing on clinical outcomes, the patient or clinician experience, service delivery, and policy; and (3) identify current gaps in the present literature to inform future studies and recommendations.

METHODS

A rapid scoping review was conducted following the guidance of the JBI 2020 scoping review methodology and the World Health Organization guide to rapid reviews. A comprehensive literature search was completed by an expert librarian from inception until November 16, 2022. Three databases were electronically searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Scopus (Elsevier). The search criteria were as follows: (1) e-prescribing programs targeted to the use or misuse of opioids, including those that were complemented or accompanied by clinically focused initiatives, and (2) a primary research study of experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, qualitative, or mixed methods design. An additional criterion of an ambulatory component of e-prescribing (eg, e-prescribing occurred upon discharge from acute care) was added at the full-text stage. No language limitations or filters were applied. All articles were double screened by trained reviewers. Gray literature was manually searched by a single reviewer. Data were synthesized using a descriptive approach.

RESULTS

Upon completing screening, 34 articles met the inclusion criteria: 32 (94%) peer-reviewed studies and 2 (6%) gray literature documents (1 thesis study and 1 report). All 33 studies had a quantitative component, with most highlighting e-prescribing from acute care settings to community settings (n=12, 36%). Only 1 (3%) of the 34 articles provided evidence on e-prescribing in a primary care setting. Minimal prescriber, pharmacist, and clinical population characteristics were reported. The main outcomes identified were related to opioid prescribing rates, alerts (eg, adverse drug events and drug-drug interactions), the quantity and duration of opioid prescriptions, the adoption of e-prescribing technology, attitudes toward e-prescribing, and potential challenges with the implementation of e-prescribing into clinical practice. e-Prescribing, including key features such as alerts and dose order sets, may reduce prescribing errors.

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid scoping review highlights initial promising results with e-prescribing and opioid therapy management. It is important that future work explores the experience of prescribers, pharmacists, and patients using e-prescribing for opioid therapy management with an emphasis on prescribers in the community and primary care. Developing a common set of quality indicators for e-prescribing of opioids will help build a stronger evidence base. Understanding implementation considerations will be of importance as the technology is integrated into clinical practice and health systems.

Physician perspectives on chronic pain management: barriers and the use of eHealth in the COVID-19 era

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is a highly prevalent and disabling condition which is often undertreated and poorly managed in the community. The emergence of COVID-19 has further complicated pain care, with an increased prevalence of chronic pain and mental health comorbidities, and burnout among physicians. While the pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in virtual health care visits, the uptake of a broader range of eHealth technologies remains unclear. The present study sought to better understand physicians' current needs and barriers in providing effective pain care within the context of COVID-19, as well as gauge current use, interest, and ongoing barriers to eHealth implementation.

METHODS

A total of 100 practicing physicians in British Columbia, Canada, completed a brief online survey.

RESULTS

The sample was comprised of physicians practicing in rural and urban areas (rural = 48%, urban = 42%; both = 10%), with the majority (72%) working in family practice. The most prominent perceived barriers to providing chronic pain care were a lack of interdisciplinary treatment and allied health care for patients, challenges related to opioid prescribing and management, and a lack of time to manage the complexities of chronic pain. Moreover, despite expressing considerable interest in eHealth for chronic pain management (82%), low adoption rates were observed for several technologies. Specifically, only a small percentage of the sample reported using eHealth for the collection of intake data (21%), patient-reported outcomes (14%), and remote patient monitoring (26%). The most common perceived barriers to implementation were cost, complexity, and unfamiliarity with available options.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide insight into physicians' ongoing needs and barriers in providing effective pain management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the potential for eHealth technologies to help address barriers in pain care, and strong interest from physicians, enhanced useability, education and training, and funding are likely required to achieve successful implementation of a broader range of eHealth technologies in the future.

Cross-sectional study of rapid tapering of opioid prescriptions following medical regulatory intervention in Alberta from 2013 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

To determine if inappropriate tapering/discontinuation of opioids to Alberta patients occurred from mid-2013-2020, as unintended consequences of prescribing guidelines, regulations and policies in response to the North American opioid crisis.

DESIGN

A population-based, repeated cross-sectional time-series study.

SETTING

Alberta, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Residents of Alberta, Canada aged 18 and older who received an opioid dispense from a community pharmacy from 2013 to 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prevalence of potential rapid tapering was measured at a given date (reference day), enveloped by a data window. Dose changes were measured as oral morphine equivalents (OME) per patient, at multiple time points ('data window' around a reference day). Chronic recipients were identified, and their prescriptions were contrasted 90 days before and after the reference day to measure OME/day changes.

RESULTS

Approximately 9000 dispenses (totalling ~6 million OME) per day were analysed from 2013 to 2020. The total number of opioid recipients was highly cyclic in nature (peaking in winter). The number of chronic opioid recipients remained somewhat stable from ~70K in 2013 to ~86K at the end of 2020. The number of chronic high and very high dose recipients presented a significant decrease after 2017. Approximately 11%-12% of chronic high-dose recipients experienced potential rapid dose tapering at a rate of 50% or more prereference to postreference day at any given point of time. For chronic very high dose recipients, approximately 11.5% experience potential rapid dose tapering at a rate of 50% or more prereference to postreference day at any given point of time. Potential discontinuation remained constant and the interventions did not have a significant impact on the trend.

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that changes in prescribing guidelines were not associated with an increase of rapid opioid tapering/discontinuation in Alberta.

Academic detailing to improve appropriate opioid prescribing: a mixed-methods process evaluation

BACKGROUND

Academic detailing, an educational outreach service for family physicians, was funded by the Ontario government to address gaps in opioid prescribing and pain management. We sought to evaluate the impact of academic detailing on opioid prescribing, and to understand how and why academic detailing may have influenced opioid prescribing.

METHODS

In this mixed-methods study, we collected quantitative and qualitative data concurrently from 2017 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We analyzed prescribing outcomes descriptively for a sample of participating physicians and compared them with a matched control group. We invited physicians to participate in qualitative interviews to discuss their experiences in academic detailing. Development and analysis of qualitative interviews was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. We triangulated qualitative and quantitative findings to understand the mechanisms that drove changes in opioid prescribing.

RESULTS

Physicians receiving academic detailing (n = 238) achieved a greater reduction in opioid prescribing than matched controls (n = 238). Seventeen physicians completed interviews and reported that academic detailing addressed barriers to pain care, including lack of confidence, difficult interactions with patients and prescribing and tapering decisions. Academic detailing reinforced knowledge about opioid prescribing and pain management. Discussion of complex patients and talking points to use during challenging conversations were described as key drivers of practice change.

INTERPRETATION

The findings of this real-world, mixed-methods evaluation explain how an academic detailing service addressed key barriers and enablers to limit high-risk opioid prescribing in primary care. This nuanced understanding will be used to inform, spread and scale academic detailing.

An answered call for aid? Cannabinoid clinical framework for the opioid epidemic

BACKGROUND

The opioid crisis continues in full force, as physicians and caregivers are desperate for resources to help patients with opioid use and chronic pain disorders find safer and more accessible non-opioid tools.

MAIN BODY

The purpose of this article is to review the current state of the opioid epidemic; the shifting picture of cannabinoids; and the research, policy, and current events that make opioid risk reduction an urgent public health challenge. The provided table contains an evidence-based clinical framework for the utilization of cannabinoids to treat patients with chronic pain who are dependent on opioids, seeking alternatives to opioids, and tapering opioids.

CONCLUSION

Based on a comprehensive review of the literature and epidemiological evidence to date, cannabinoids stand to be one of the most interesting, safe, and accessible tools available to attenuate the devastation resulting from the misuse and abuse of opioid narcotics. Considering the urgency of the opioid epidemic and broadening of cannabinoid accessibility amidst absent prescribing guidelines, the authors recommend use of this clinical framework in the contexts of both clinical research continuity and patient care.

Ivers N. Surfacing the causal assumptions and active ingredients of healthcare quality improvement interventions: An application to primary care opioid prescribing

Background

Efforts to maximize the impact of healthcare improvement interventions are hampered when intervention components are not well defined or described, precluding the ability to understand how and why interventions are expected to work.

Method

We partnered with two organizations delivering province-wide quality improvement interventions to establish how they envisaged their interventions lead to change (their underlying causal assumptions) and to identify active ingredients (behavior change techniques [BCTs]). The interventions assessed were an audit and feedback report and an academic detailing program. Both focused on supporting safer opioid prescribing in primary care in Ontario, Canada. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with intervention developers (n = 8) and a content analysis of intervention documents. Analyses unpacked and articulated how the interventions were intended to achieve change and how this was operationalized.

Results

Developers anticipated that the feedback report would provide physicians with a clear understanding of their own prescribing patterns in comparison to others. In the feedback report, we found an emphasis on BCTs consistent with that assumption (feedback on behavior; social comparison). The detailing was designed to provide tailored support to enable physicians to overcome barriers to change and to gradually enact specific practice changes for patients based on improved communication. In the detailing materials, we found an emphasis on instructions on how to perform the behavior, for a range of behaviors (e.g., tapering opioids, treating opioid use disorder). The materials were supplemented by detailer-enacted BCTs (e.g., social support [practical]; goal setting [behavior]; review behavioral goal[s]).

Conclusions

The interventions included a small range of BCTs addressing various clinical behaviors. This work provides a methodological example of how to apply a behavioral lens to surface the active ingredients, target clinical behaviors, and causal assumptions of existing large-scale improvement interventions that could be applied in other contexts to optimize effectiveness and facilitate scale and spread.

Healthcare provider knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in North America prior to the emergence of COVID-19: A systematic review of qualitative research

Background

Balance between benefits and harms of using opioids for the management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all approach that can be executed by prescribers and clinicians when considering this therapy.

Aim

The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for prescribing opioids for CNCP through a systematic review of qualitative literature.

Methods

Six databases were searched from inception to June 2019 for qualitative studies reporting on provider knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, or practices pertaining to prescribing opioids for CNCP in North America. Data were extracted, risk of bias was rated, and confidence in evidence was graded.

Results

Twenty-seven studies reporting data from 599 health care providers were included. Ten themes emerged that influenced clinical decision making when prescribing opioids. Providers were more comfortable to prescribe opioids when (1) patients were actively engaged in pain self-management, (2) clear institutional prescribing policies were present and prescription drug monitoring programs were used, (3) long-standing relationships and strong therapeutic alliance were present, and (4) interprofessional supports were available. Factors that reduced likelihood of prescribing opioids included (1) uncertainty toward subjectivity of pain and efficacy of opioids, (2) concern for the patient (e.g., adverse effects) and community (i.e., diversion), (3) previous negative experiences (e.g., receiving threats), (4) difficulty enacting guidelines, and (5) organizational barriers (e.g., insufficient appointment duration and lengthy documentation).

Conclusions

Understanding barriers and facilitators that influence opioid-prescribing practices offers insight into modifiable targets for interventions that can support providers in delivering care consistent with practice guidelines.

A Scoping Review of Gaps Identified by Primary Care Providers in Caring for Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain

Introduction/Aim

Primary care providers (PCPs), who provide the bulk of care for patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), often report knowledge gaps, limited resources, and difficult patient encounters while managing chronic pain. This scoping review seeks to evaluate gaps identified by PCPs in providing care to patients with chronic pain.

Methods

The Arksey and O'Malley framework was used for this scoping review. A broad literature search was conducted for relevant articles on gaps in knowledge and skills of PCPs and in their health care environment for managing chronic pain, with multiple search term derivatives for concepts of interest. Articles from the initial search were screened for relevance, yielding 31 studies. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was adopted.

Results

The studies included in this review reflected a variety of study designs, settings, and methods. However, consistent themes emerged with respect to gaps in knowledge and skills for assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and interprofessional roles in chronic pain, as well as broader systemic issues including attitudes toward CNCP. A general lack of confidence in tapering high dose or ineffective opioid regimes, professional isolation, challenges in managing patients with CNCP with complex needs, and limited access to pain specialists were reported by PCPs.

Discussion/Conclusions

This scoping review revealed common elements across the selected studies that will be useful in guiding creation of targeted supports for PCPs to manage CNCP. This review also yielded insights for pain clinicians at tertiary centers for supporting their PCP colleagues as well as systemic reforms required to support patients with CNCP.

A qualitative interview study of GPs' experiences of prescribing opioid medication for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Prescribing of opioid medication has increased over the past 20 years. Most occurs in primary care for chronic pain. There is little evidence that these drugs are effective for this indication. There are concerns about the continuing prescribing of opioids, particularly in the long term and at high doses.

AIM

To explore GPs' experiences of prescribing opioids, problems encountered, and factors militating against good prescribing practice.

DESIGN & SETTING

Qualitative interviews with GPs who prescribe opioids in primary care in North East Wales.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis utilising the framework approach.

RESULTS

Participating GPs identified a range of problems associated with prescribed opioids. They were concerned about limited effectiveness of the drugs and what they perceived as addiction resulting from their use. They identified healthcare system factors that were obstacles to good prescribing practice such as lack of continuity of care, poor access to secondary care pain management support, and, most importantly, constant time pressure. They reported adverse effects on relationships with patients. Unrealistic expectations that pain could be eliminated resulted in pressure to prescribe stronger drugs and increased doses. It led to difficulties in establishing and maintaining trust and in persuading patients to agree to, and to carry out, dose reductions.

CONCLUSION

Themes emerging from this study suggest that GPs lack appropriate control of opioid prescribing. There is a need to develop methods to help patients and GPs to work together to manage chronic pain safely.

Barriers and enablers to health care providers assessment and treatment of knee osteoarthritis in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Objectives

Symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) commonly co-exists in persons with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and may impede diabetes self-management. Yet, OA is often underdiagnosed and undertreated due to competing health care demands. We sought to determine healthcare providers' (HCPs') perceptions of the barriers and enablers to assessing and treating knee OA in persons with T2DM.

Design

We conducted 18 semi-structured telephone interviews with HCPs who manage persons with T2DM (family physicians, endocrinologists, diabetes educators). Interviews were analyzed deductively using Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a framework developed to comprehensively identify behavioural determinants. Within relevant domains, data were thematically analyzed to generate belief statements, and these were compared across the different HCP disciplines.

Results

Six TDF domains influenced HCPs behaviour to assess and treat knee OA in persons with T2DM. For all HCPs, important barriers included not seeing assessment/treatment of joint pain as a priority for their patients (intention), and insufficient access to required resources such as physiotherapy to treat OA (environmental context and resources). Endocrinologists and diabetes educators perceived having insufficient knowledge and skills to identify and manage OA (knowledge, skills), did not consider it within their professional role to do so (professional role and identity), and perceived other physicians would not want to receive a referral for OA care (social influences).

Conclusions

We identified barriers and enablers encountered by diabetes HCPs to assessing and treating knee OA in persons with T2DM involving multiple domains of the TDF. These will help inform development of a complex intervention to improve health outcomes.

Healthcare professional behaviour: health impact, prevalence of evidence-based behaviours, correlates and interventions

Healthcare professional (HCP) behaviours are actions performed by individuals and teams for varying and often complex patient needs. However, gaps exist between evidence-informed care behaviours and the care provided. Implementation science seeks to develop generalizable principles and approaches to investigate and address care gaps, supporting HCP behaviour change while building a cumulative science. We highlight theory-informed approaches for defining HCP behaviour and investigating the prevalence of evidence-based care and known correlates and interventions to change professional practice. Behavioural sciences can be applied to develop implementation strategies to support HCP behaviour change and provide valid, reliable tools to evaluate these strategies. There are thousands of different behaviours performed by different HCPs across many contexts, requiring different implementation approaches. HCP behaviours can include activities related to promoting health and preventing illness, assessing and diagnosing illnesses, providing treatments, managing health conditions, managing the healthcare system and building therapeutic alliances. The key challenge is optimising behaviour change interventions that address barriers to and enablers of recommended practice. HCP behaviours may be determined by, but not limited to, Knowledge, Social influences, Intention, Emotions and Goals. Understanding HCP behaviour change is a critical to ensuring advances in health psychology are applied to maximize population health.

Collaboration between adult patients and practitioners when making decisions about prescribing opioid medicines for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Long-term opioid therapy (>12 months) is not effective for improving chronic non-cancer pain and function. Where patients are not experiencing pain relief with long-term opioids, the opioid should be tapered and discontinuation considered. Practitioners may find it challenging to tell patients experiencing pain that they are better off reducing or not taking medicines that do not help. This review aims to ascertain what is published about: (1) the interaction and (2) the nature of the relationship between practitioners and patients when prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care.

METHOD

A scoping review of English-language qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method studies in databases including: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, BNI, CINALH EMCARE and HMIC. The identified papers were reviewed to provide a descriptive summary of the literature.

RESULTS

The review identified 20 studies. The studies used a range of methods including interviews, focus groups, audio and video recordings of clinical consultations, telephone survey and data from patient records. One study reported that researchers had engaged with a patient advisory group to guide their research. Patients expressed the importance of being treated as individuals, not being judged and being involved in prescribing decisions. Practitioners expressed difficulty in managing patient expectations and establishing trust. Opioid risk and practitioner suspicion shape opioid prescribing decisions. There is a paucity of literature about how precisely practitioners overcome interactional challenges and implement personalised care in practice.

CONCLUSION

The studies in this review ascertain that practitioners and patients often find it challenging to achieve shared decisions in opioid review consultations. Effective communication is essential to achieve good clinical practice. Collaborative research with PPI partners should be aimed at identifying communication practices that support practitioners to achieve shared decisions with patients when reviewing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

General practitioners' attitudes towards opioids for non-cancer pain: a qualitative systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Worldwide the use of opioids, both doctor-prescribed and illicit, has increased. In most countries, opioids are first prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). Identifying factors that influence GPs' opioid prescription decision-making may help reduce opioid misuse and overuse. We performed a systematic review to gain insight into GP attitudes towards opioid prescription and to identify possible solutions to promote changes in the field of primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies reporting GPs' attitudes towards opioid use in non-cancer pain management.

METHODS

We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Study quality was evaluated with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, and their results were analysed using thematic analysis. Quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies. Four themes were established using thematic analyses: (1) GPs caught in the middle of 'the opioid crisis'; (2) Are opioids always bad? (3) GPs' weighing scale, taking patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors into account; and (4) GPs' sense of powerlessness-lack of alternatives, support by specialists and lack of time in justifying non-prescriptions.

CONCLUSION

GP attitudes towards opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain are subject to several GP-related, patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors. Raising GP and patient awareness on the inefficacy of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain management and providing non-opioid alternatives to treat chronic pain might help to promote opioid reduction in primary care. More research is needed to develop practical guidelines on appropriate opioid prescribing, tapering off opioid use and adopting effective communication strategies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020194561.Cite Now.

Barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Background

Understanding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids will enable the development of tailored interventions to improve both practices.

Objective

To perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and enablers to monitoring ongoing appropriateness and deprescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Methods

We included English-language qualitative studies that explored healthcare professional (HCP), patient, carer and the general public’s perceptions regarding monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO from inception to August 2020. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research). We used an inductive approach to synthesis of qualitative data and mapped identified themes to TDF domains.

Results

From 6948 records identified we included 21 studies, involving 209 HCPs and 330 patients. No studies involved carers or the general public. Five barrier themes were identified: limited alternatives to opioids, management of pain is top priority, patient understanding, expectations and experiences, prescriber pressures, and reluctance to change. Four enabler themes were identified: negative effects of opioids and benefits of deprescribing, clear communication and expectations for deprescribing, support for patients, and support for prescribers. 16 barrier and 12 enabler subthemes were identified; most were graded as high (n=15) or moderate (n=9) confidence. The TDF domains ‘beliefs about consequences’, ‘environmental context and resources’, ‘social influences’ and ‘emotion’ were salient for patients and HCPs. The domains ‘skills’ and ‘beliefs about capabilities’ were more salient for HCPs.

Conclusion

Future implementation interventions aimed at monitoring and deprescribing opioids should target the patient and HCP barriers and enablers identified in this synthesis.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42019140784.

Impact of changes in opioid funding and clinical policies on rapid tapering of opioids in Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT

Reports have emerged of abrupt tapering among recipients of long-term prescription opioids to conform new prescribing guidelines. We conducted a population-based, repeated cross-sectional time-series study among very high-dose (≥200 MME) opioid recipients in Ontario, Canada, to examine changes in the monthly prevalence of rapid tapering from 2014 to 2018, defined as recipients experiencing either a ≥50% reduction in daily doses or abrupt discontinuation sustained for 30 days. Interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models were used to test for significant changes following key guidelines and drug policies and programs. A sensitivity analysis examined rapid tapering sustained for 90 days. The monthly prevalence of rapid tapering events was stable from January 2014 to September 2016 (average monthly prevalence: 1.4%) but increased from 1.4% in October 2016 to 1.8% in April 2017 (P = 0.001), coincident with Ontario's Fentanyl Patch-for-Patch Return Program implementation. Transient spikes in the prevalence of rapid tapering also occurred 2 months after Ontario's delisting of publicly funded high-strength opioids and the release of updated Canadian Opioid Prescribing Guideline for Chronic Pain, reaching 2.3% in March 2017 and July 2017, respectively. However, this prevalence decreased to 1.2% in December 2018 (P < 0.0001). Although the prevalence of abrupt opioid discontinuation was lower, similar trends were observed. Our sensitivity analysis examining long-lasting rapid tapering found similar trends but lower prevalence, with no changes in complete discontinuation. These temporary increases in rapid tapering events highlight the need for improved communication and evidence-based resources for prescribers to minimize negative consequences of evolving policies and guidelines.

The effects of an evidence- and theory-informed feedback intervention on opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: A controlled interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant international public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations, and mortality. We evaluated the effects of a comparative feedback intervention with persuasive messaging and action planning on opioid prescribing in primary care.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A quasi-experimental controlled interrupted time series analysis used anonymised, aggregated practice data from electronic health records and prescribing data from publicly available sources. The study included 316 intervention and 130 control primary care practices in the Yorkshire and Humber region, UK, serving 2.2 million and 1 million residents, respectively. We observed the number of adult patients prescribed opioid medication by practice between July 2013 and December 2017. We excluded adults with coded cancer or drug dependency. The intervention, the Campaign to Reduce Opioid Prescribing (CROP), entailed bimonthly, comparative, and practice-individualised feedback reports to practices, with persuasive messaging and suggested actions over 1 year. Outcomes comprised the number of adults per 1,000 adults per month prescribed any opioid (main outcome), prescribed strong opioids, prescribed opioids in high-risk groups, prescribed other analgesics, and referred to musculoskeletal services. The number of adults prescribed any opioid rose pre-intervention in both intervention and control practices, by 0.18 (95% CI 0.11, 0.25) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.27, 0.46) per 1,000 adults per month, respectively. During the intervention period, prescribing per 1,000 adults fell in intervention practices (change -0.11; 95% CI -0.30, -0.08) and continued rising in control practices (change 0.54; 95% CI 0.29, 0.78), with a difference of -0.65 per 1,000 patients (95% CI -0.96, -0.34), corresponding to 15,000 fewer patients prescribed opioids. These trends continued post-intervention, although at slower rates. Prescribing of strong opioids, total opioid prescriptions, and prescribing in high-risk patient groups also generally fell. Prescribing of other analgesics fell whilst musculoskeletal referrals did not rise. Effects were attenuated after feedback ceased. Study limitations include being limited to 1 region in the UK, possible coding errors in routine data, being unable to fully account for concurrent interventions, and uncertainties over how general practices actually used the feedback reports and whether reductions in prescribing were always clinically appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated comparative feedback offers a promising and relatively efficient population-level approach to reduce opioid prescribing in primary care, including prescribing of strong opioids and prescribing in high-risk patient groups. Such feedback may also prompt clinicians to reconsider prescribing other medicines associated with chronic pain, without causing a rise in referrals to musculoskeletal clinics. Feedback may need to be sustained for maximum effect.

Effect of COVID-19 on management of patients with low back pain in the emergency department

Background

Patients presenting to Emergency Department (ED) with non-specific low back pain can receive more unnecessary, intensive and costly care than is recommended. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an unprecedented opportunity to examine how health systems prioritise necessary care that provides clear benefits to patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on care of low back pain in the ED.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data on care for low back pain from three public hospitals in Sydney. We included patients diagnosed with spinal conditions who presented between March and May in 2019 and in 2020. Outcomes were the total number of patients presenting with spinal conditions to ED, the proportion diagnosed with non-specific low back pain, and the proportion receiving potentially unnecessary aspects of care (ambulance use, imaging, opioids, hospital admissions). We calculated relative risk with 95% CIs and examined plots with locally weighted smoothed curves.

Results

Presentations for spinal conditions over a three-month period to three EDs reduced from 694 in 2019 to 475 in 2020 (31% reduction, 95% CI = 26%–37%). The proportion of patients diagnosed with non-specific low back pain (83% in 2019 vs 86% in 2020), or receiving potentially unnecessary care were similar in 2019 and 2020 (Imaging = 25% vs 25%; Opioids = 54% vs 56%; Admitted = 18% vs 20%; pathology test = 24% vs 23%). The proportion of patients arriving by ambulance was higher during the pandemic; 29% in 2019 vs 41% in 2020 (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.19–1.63).

Conclusions

ED presentations for low back pain associated with spinal conditions decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Use of potentially unnecessary aspects of care did not change or increased during the pandemic.

Barriers and facilitators encountered by family physicians prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Harms caused by prescription opioid analgesics (POAs) have been identified as a major international public health concern. Recent statistics show rising numbers of opioid-related deaths across Canada. However, Canadian family physicians appear to have inadequate resources to safely and effectively prescribe opioid analgesics to treat chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP).

METHODS

We completed a qualitative study of the barriers and facilitators to safe and effective prescribing of opioid analgesics for CNCP through semi-structured interviews with eight family physicians in Nova Scotia. Thematic analysis was used to identify the barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

Family physicians identified challenges in prescribing opioid analgesics for CNCP: the complexity of CNCP management, addictions risks and prescribing tools, physician training, the physician-patient relationship, prescription monitoring and control, and systemic factors.

CONCLUSION

Family physicians described themselves as inadequately supported in their prescribing of opioid analgesics for CNCP and could benefit from an integrated and coordinated approach to prescriber support.

Predictors of Opioid Prescription Among a Sample of Patients with Acute Musculoskeletal Pain at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia

Background

Musculoskeletal pain is one of the most complex and debilitating types of pain. Although different pharmacologic treatments are available, very few studies have explored the predictors for opioid analgesics prescription to manage this type of pain.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the predictors for opioid prescription in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of adult patients (≥18 yrs.) with an acute nociceptive musculoskeletal pain at a university-affiliated medical center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Cancer patients and those with chronic neuropathic pain were excluded. Patients’ age, gender, number of comorbidities, duration of pain management, number of clinic visits for pain, and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) scores at rest and with normal activities were collected. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to examine the relationship between the type of musculoskeletal pain and the prescription of opioid analgesics controlling for NPRS score on activity, age, gender, number of comorbidities, duration of pain treatment, and number of clinic visits for pain.

Results

The mean age of the 227 patients, who met the inclusion criteria, was 39 years and 68% of them were male. Sixty-three percent of the patients were prescribed opioid analgesics, and 61% of them had shoulder pain, 29% had back pain, and 10% had lower extremity pain (eg, hip, thigh, lower leg, knee, ankle, and foot pain). Tramadol was the most commonly prescribed opioid analgesic (82%), followed by codeine (13%). Ninety-seven percent of patients who were prescribed non-opioid analgesics had shoulder pain. Patients with shoulder pain had lower odds of receiving opioid analgesics (OR=0.019, P<0.0001, 95% CI=0.004–0.081) in comparison to their counterparts who had lower extremity or back pains. Moreover, the higher the pain score on activity was, the higher odds of receiving opioid analgesics (OR=1.317, P<0.0001, 95% CI=1.029–1.685).

Conclusion

Future studies should explore the impact of different opioid prescribing policies to improve the quality of patient care and reduce the unnecessary prescribing of opioids for patients with non-cancer musculoskeletal pain.

A Population Study of Prescribed Opioid-based Pain Reliever Use among Individuals with Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Canada

BACKGROUND

In the context of the ongoing North American overdose crisis, a clear understanding of opioid prescription and usage trends is important. Although individuals with mood and/or anxiety disorders are a sub-population at increased risk of developing substance use disorders, they have been identified as more likely to receive opioid prescriptions. The primary objective of this study was to investigate differences in prescribed opioid-based pain reliever use between Canadians with and without diagnosed mood and/or anxiety disorders.

METHODS

We utilized data from the 2015-2016 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), a population-based, cross-sectional survey. We examined self-reported diagnoses of mood and/or anxiety disorders and self-reported prescribed opioid-based pain reliever use. Logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted odds of prescribed opioid-based pain reliever use associated with mood and/or anxiety disorders.

RESULTS

Our study sample had 2,810 individuals. The prevalence of mood and/or anxiety disorders and prescribed opioid use was 11.7% and 14.6%, respectively. Individuals diagnosed with mood and/or anxiety disorders were more likely to use prescribed opioid-based pain relievers compared with individuals without these diagnoses (OR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.64, 3.41), even after adjustment for age, sex, total household income, cultural/racial background, and chronic pain (AOR= 1.78, 95% CI= 1.23, 2.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that mood and/or anxiety disorders were positively associated with prescribed opioid-based pain reliever use. Future research should investigate potential unmet healthcare needs among individuals with these conditions, as mood and/or anxiety disorders may be modifiable risk factors.

The System Is Broken: A Qualitative Assessment of Opioid Prescribing Practices After Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate factors that influence opioid prescribing behaviors of key stakeholders after major spine surgery, with a focus on barriers to optimized prescribing.

METHODS

In-person semi-structured interviews were performed with 20 surgical and medical professionals (January 23, 2019 to June 11, 2019) at a large academic medical center, including resident physicians, midlevel providers, attending physicians, and clinical pharmacists. Interviews centered on perceptions of postoperative prescribing practices were coded and analyzed using a qualitative inductive approach.

RESULTS

Several unique themes emerged. First, wide interprovider variation exists in the perceived role of opioid prescribing guidelines. Second, there are important relationships between clinical experience, time constraints, and postoperative opioid prescribing. Third, opioid tapering is a major area of inconsistency. Fourth, there are serious challenges in managing analgesic expectations, particularly in those with chronic pain. Finally, there is currently no process to facilitate the hand-off or transition of opioid prescribing responsibility between surgical and primary care teams, which represents a major area for practice optimization efforts.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased focus on postoperative opioid prescribing, there remain numerous areas for improvement. The development of tools and processes to address critical gaps in postoperative prescribing will be essential for our efforts to reduce long-term opioid use after major spine surgery and improve patient care.

In Their Own Words: How Opioids Have Impacted the Lives of "Everyday" People Living in Appalachia

Introduction

The opioid epidemic is ravaging people, families, and communities in Appalachia. However, limited research has examined how "everyday" people (e.g., not chronic pain patients, not medical professionals) living in these communities how opioids have impacted their lives.

Objective

Identify the perception of the opioid epidemic on individuals, families, and communities from people living in region most impacted regions.

Methods

Patients were recruited at Remote Area Medical clinics throughout Central and Southern Appalachia to complete interviews online (N = 169) or over the phone (N = 26), including one open-ended question about how opioids have impacted their lives.

Results

Using the qualitative method content analysis, several themes were identified, including both the positive and negative impact of opioids from the online interviews. Additionally, resiliency was found to be a common theme and a theme not often emphasized by scholars and the media. These themes also highlight the importance of social support in these communities. Further, in the phone interviews, we were able to replicate the themes, and an additional theme was identified: Systemic Cause of Opioids.

Conclusion

Opioid intervention must be comprehensive and include the cultural context that recognizes community ties, family and kinship support, resilience, and systemic barriers to addressing the opioid epidemic. Future interventions must harness the existing resiliency and social support in these communities to effectively combat the opioid crisis in Appalachia. Otherwise, opioids will remain the insider and further insulate Appalachian communities from systemic recovery.

Would they trust it? An exploration of psychosocial and environmental factors affecting prescriber acceptance of computerised dose-recommendation software

AIMS

Dose-prediction software can optimise vancomycin therapy, improving therapeutic drug monitoring processes and reducing drug toxicity. Success of software in hospitals may be dependent on prescriber uptake of software recommendations. This study aimed to identify the perceived psychosocial and environmental barriers and facilitators to prescriber acceptance of dose-prediction software.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews, incorporating prescribing scenarios, were undertaken with 17 prescribers. Participants were asked to prescribe the next maintenance dose of vancomycin for a scenario(s) and then asked if they would accept a recommendation provided by a dose-prediction software. Interviews further explored opinions of dose-prediction software. Interview transcripts were analysed using an inductive approach to identify themes and the Theoretical Domains Framework was used to synthesise barriers and facilitators to software acceptance.

RESULTS

When presented with software recommendations, half of the participants were comfortable with accepting the recommendation. Key barriers to acceptance of software recommendations aligned with 2 Theoretical Domains Framework domains: Knowledge (uncertainty of software capability) and Beliefs about Consequences (perceived impact of software on clinical outcomes and workload). Key facilitators aligned with 2 domains: Beliefs about Consequences (improved efficiency) and Social Influences (influence of peers). A novel domain, Trust, was identified as influential.

CONCLUSION

Prescribers reported barriers to acceptance of dose-prediction software aligned with limited understanding of, and scepticism about, software capabilities, as well as concerns about clinical outcomes. Identification of key barriers and facilitators to acceptance provides essential information to design of implementation strategies to support the introduction of this intervention into the workplace.

Variability in opioid prescribing practices among cardiac surgeons and trainees

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The opioid epidemic has become a major public health crisis in recent years. Discharge opioid prescription following cardiac surgery has been associated with opioid use disorder; however, ideal practices remain unclear. Our aim was to examine current practices in discharge opioid prescription among cardiac surgeons and trainees.

METHODS

A survey instrument with open- and closed-ended questions, developed through a 3-round Delphi method, was circulated to cardiac surgeons and trainees via the Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons. Survey questions focused on routine prescription practices including type, dosage and duration. Respondents were also asked about their perceptions of current education and guidelines surrounding opioid medication.

RESULTS

Eighty-one percent of respondents reported prescribing opioids at discharge following routine sternotomy-based procedures, however, there remained significant variability in the type and dose of medication prescribed. The median (interquartile range) number of pills prescribed was 30 (20-30) with a median total dose of 135 (113-200) Morphine Milligram Equivalents. Informal teaching was the most commonly reported primary influence on prescribing habits and a lack of formal education regarding opioid prescription was associated with a higher number of pills prescribed. A majority of respondents (91%) felt that there would be value in establishing practice guidelines for opioid prescription following cardiac surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variability exists with respect to routine opioid prescription at discharge following cardiac surgery. Education has come predominantly from informal sources and there is a desire for guidelines. Standardization in this area may have a role in combatting the opioid epidemic.

Response to "understanding the behavioural determinants of opioid prescribing among family physicians: a qualitative study"

The 2017 Canadian opioid Guideline made both strong recommendations, indicating that all or almost all fully informed patients would choose the recommended course of action, and weak recommendations, in which different choices are appropriate for individual patients based on their values and preferences. The Guideline’s recommendation to taper legacy patients prescribed high-dose opioid therapy is weak, and mandatory tapering is expressly discouraged.

Perceptions and Impact of the 2017 Canadian Guideline for Opioid Therapy and Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of Canadian Physicians

Background

Physician adherence to guideline recommendations for the use of opioids to manage chronic pain is often limited.

Objective

In February 2018, we administered a 28-item online survey to explore perceptions of the 2017 Canadian guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain and if physicians had altered practices in response to recommendations.

Results

We invited 34,322 Canadian physicians to complete our survey, and 1,128 responded for a response rate of 3%; 687 respondents indicated they prescribed opioids for noncancer pain and answered survey questions about the guideline and their practice. Almost all were aware of the guideline, 94% had read the document, and 89% endorsed the clarity as good or excellent. The majority (86%) felt the guideline was feasible to implement, but 66% highlighted resistance by patients, and 63% the lack of access to effective nonopioid treatment as barriers. Thirty-six percent of respondents mistakenly believed the guideline recommended mandatory tapering for patients using high-dose opioid therapy (≥90 mg morphine equivalent per day), and 58% felt they would benefit from support for opioid tapering. Seventy percent of respondents had changed practices to align with guideline recommendations, with 51% engaging some high-dose patients in opioid tapering and 43% reducing the number of new opioid starts.

Conclusion

There was high awareness of the 2017 Canadian opioid guideline among respondents, and preliminary evidence that recommendations have changed practice to better align with the evidence. Ongoing education is required to avoid the misunderstanding that opioid tapering is mandatory, and research to identify effective strategies to manage chronic noncancer pain is urgently needed.