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.

IF 2 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Louise V Bell, Sarah F Fitzgerald, David Flusk, Patricia A Poulin, Joshua A Rash
{"title":"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.","authors":"Louise V Bell,&nbsp;Sarah F Fitzgerald,&nbsp;David Flusk,&nbsp;Patricia A Poulin,&nbsp;Joshua A Rash","doi":"10.1080/24740527.2022.2156331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for prescribing opioids for CNCP through a systematic review of qualitative literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":53214,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","volume":"7 1","pages":"2156331"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9980668/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2022.2156331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在COVID-19出现之前,北美医疗保健提供者对阿片类药物治疗慢性非癌性疼痛的知识、信念和态度:对定性研究的系统回顾。
背景:使用阿片类药物治疗慢性非癌性疼痛(CNCP)的利弊之间的平衡必须在个案基础上仔细考虑。当医生和临床医生考虑这种疗法时,没有一种放之四海而皆准的方法。目的:本研究的目的是通过对定性文献的系统回顾,确定为CNCP处方阿片类药物的障碍和促进因素。方法:从成立之初到2019年6月,对六个数据库进行检索,以进行定性研究,报告北美地区与CNCP处方阿片类药物有关的提供者知识、态度、信念或做法。提取数据,对偏倚风险进行评级,并对证据的置信度进行分级。结果:纳入了27项研究,报告了599名卫生保健提供者的数据。当处方阿片类药物时,十个主题会影响临床决策。当(1)患者积极参与疼痛自我管理,(2)有明确的机构处方政策和使用处方药监测程序,(3)存在长期关系和强大的治疗联盟,(4)可获得跨专业支持时,提供者更愿意开阿片类药物。降低阿片类药物处方可能性的因素包括(1)对阿片类药物疼痛和疗效主观性的不确定性,(2)对患者(例如,不良反应)和社区(例如,转移)的关注,(3)以前的负面经历(例如,接受威胁),(4)制定指南的困难,以及(5)组织障碍(例如,预约时间不足和冗长的文件)。结论:了解影响阿片类药物处方实践的障碍和促进因素,有助于深入了解干预措施的可修改目标,这些目标可以支持提供者按照实践指南提供护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信