Disparities in Postoperative Pain Management: A Scoping Review of Prescription Practices and Social Determinants of Health.

IF 2 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmacy Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI:10.3390/pharmacy13020034
Aidan Snell, Diana Lobaina, Sebastian Densley, Elijah Moothedan, Julianne Baker, Lama Al Abdul Razzak, Alexandra Garcia, Shane Skibba, Ayden Dunn, Tiffany Follin, Maria Mejia, Panagiota Kitsantas, Lea Sacca
{"title":"Disparities in Postoperative Pain Management: A Scoping Review of Prescription Practices and Social Determinants of Health.","authors":"Aidan Snell, Diana Lobaina, Sebastian Densley, Elijah Moothedan, Julianne Baker, Lama Al Abdul Razzak, Alexandra Garcia, Shane Skibba, Ayden Dunn, Tiffany Follin, Maria Mejia, Panagiota Kitsantas, Lea Sacca","doi":"10.3390/pharmacy13020034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Opioid analgesic therapy has been traditionally used for pain management; however, the variability in patient characteristics, complexity in evaluating pain, availability of treatment within facilities, and U.S. physicians overprescribing opioids have contributed to the current opioid epidemic. Despite large research efforts investigating the patterns of postsurgical pain management and influencing factors, it remains unclear how these overall trends vary across the varying sizes and available resources of academic hospitals, community hospitals, and outpatient surgery centers. The primary aim of this scoping review was to examine the patterns of contemporary postoperative pain management across healthcare settings, including academic medical centers, community hospitals, and outpatient surgery centers. Specifically, this study investigates how prescription practices for opioids, NSAIDs, and acetaminophen are influenced by patient demographics, including sex, race, gender, insurance status, and other social determinants of health (SDoH), to inform equitable and patient-centered pain management strategies. <b>Methods</b>: This study utilized The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and was used as a reference checklist. The Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was used to guide the review process. To ensure comprehensive coverage, searches were conducted across three major databases: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. <b>Results</b>: A total of 43 eligible studies were retained for analysis. The highest reported Healthy People 2030 category was Social and community context (n = 39), while the highest reported category of SDoH was age (n = 36). A total of 34 articles listed sex and age as SDoH. Additional SDoH examined were race/ethnicity (n = 17), insurance (n = 7), employment (n = 1), education (n = 4), and income (n = 1). This review suggests that there are significant gaps in the implementation of institution-specific, patient-centered, and equitable pain management strategies, particularly in academic hospitals, which our findings show have the highest rates of opioid and NSAID prescriptions (n = 26) compared to outpatient surgical centers (n = 8). Findings from our review of the literature demonstrated that while academic hospitals often adopt enhanced recovery protocols aimed at reducing opioid dependence, these protocols can fail to address the diverse needs of at-risk populations, such as those with chronic substance use, low socioeconomic status, or racial and ethnic minorities. <b>Conclusions</b>: Findings from this review are expected to have implications for informing both organizational-specific and nationwide policy recommendations, potentially leading to more personalized and equitable pain management strategies across different healthcare settings. These include guidelines for clinicians on addressing various aspects of postoperative pain management, including preoperative education, perioperative pain management planning, use of different pharmacological and nonpharmacological modalities, organizational policies, and transition to outpatient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":30544,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacy","volume":"13 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11932221/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy13020034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Opioid analgesic therapy has been traditionally used for pain management; however, the variability in patient characteristics, complexity in evaluating pain, availability of treatment within facilities, and U.S. physicians overprescribing opioids have contributed to the current opioid epidemic. Despite large research efforts investigating the patterns of postsurgical pain management and influencing factors, it remains unclear how these overall trends vary across the varying sizes and available resources of academic hospitals, community hospitals, and outpatient surgery centers. The primary aim of this scoping review was to examine the patterns of contemporary postoperative pain management across healthcare settings, including academic medical centers, community hospitals, and outpatient surgery centers. Specifically, this study investigates how prescription practices for opioids, NSAIDs, and acetaminophen are influenced by patient demographics, including sex, race, gender, insurance status, and other social determinants of health (SDoH), to inform equitable and patient-centered pain management strategies. Methods: This study utilized The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and was used as a reference checklist. The Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was used to guide the review process. To ensure comprehensive coverage, searches were conducted across three major databases: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Results: A total of 43 eligible studies were retained for analysis. The highest reported Healthy People 2030 category was Social and community context (n = 39), while the highest reported category of SDoH was age (n = 36). A total of 34 articles listed sex and age as SDoH. Additional SDoH examined were race/ethnicity (n = 17), insurance (n = 7), employment (n = 1), education (n = 4), and income (n = 1). This review suggests that there are significant gaps in the implementation of institution-specific, patient-centered, and equitable pain management strategies, particularly in academic hospitals, which our findings show have the highest rates of opioid and NSAID prescriptions (n = 26) compared to outpatient surgical centers (n = 8). Findings from our review of the literature demonstrated that while academic hospitals often adopt enhanced recovery protocols aimed at reducing opioid dependence, these protocols can fail to address the diverse needs of at-risk populations, such as those with chronic substance use, low socioeconomic status, or racial and ethnic minorities. Conclusions: Findings from this review are expected to have implications for informing both organizational-specific and nationwide policy recommendations, potentially leading to more personalized and equitable pain management strategies across different healthcare settings. These include guidelines for clinicians on addressing various aspects of postoperative pain management, including preoperative education, perioperative pain management planning, use of different pharmacological and nonpharmacological modalities, organizational policies, and transition to outpatient care.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacy
Pharmacy PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
9.10%
发文量
141
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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