Dataset Information

Evidence-based narratives to improve recall of opioid prescribing guidelines: a randomized experiment.

ABSTRACT: Physicians adopt evidence-based guidelines with variable consistency. Narratives, or stories, offer a novel dissemination strategy for clinical recommendations. The study objective was to compare whether evidence-based narrative versus traditional summary improved recall of opioid prescribing guidelines from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).This was a prospective, randomized controlled experiment to compare whether narrative versus summary promoted short-term recall of six themes contained in the ACEP opioid guideline. The experiment was modeled after the free-recall test, an established technique in studies of memory. At a regional conference, emergency physicians (EPs) were randomized to read either a summary of the guideline (control) or a narrative (intervention). The fictional narrative was constructed to match the summary in content and length. One hour after reading the text, participants listed all content that they could recall. Two reviewers independently scored the responses to assess recall of the six themes. The primary outcome was the total number of themes recalled per participant. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of responses in each study arm that recalled individual themes and the proportion of responses in each arm that contained falsely recalled or extraneous information.Ninety-five physicians were randomized. Eighty-two physicians completed the experiment, for a response rate of 86%. The mean of the total number of themes recalled per participant was 3.1 in the narrative arm versus 2.0 in the summary arm (difference = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6 to 1.7). For three themes, the proportion of responses that recalled the theme was significantly greater in the narrative arm compared to the summary arm, with the differences ranging from 20% to 51%. For one theme, recall was significantly greater in the summary arm. For two themes, there was no statistically significant difference in recall between the arms. In the summary arm, 54% of responses were found to contain falsely recalled or extraneous information versus 21% of responses in the narrative arm (difference = 33%, 95% CI = 14% to 53%).Physicians exposed to a narrative about opioid guidelines were more likely to recall guideline content at 1 hour than those exposed to a summary of the guidelines. Future studies should examine whether the incorporation of narratives in dissemination campaigns improves guideline adoption and changes clinical practice

SUBMITTER: Kilaru AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4104184 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence-based narratives to improve recall of opioid prescribing guidelines: a randomized experiment.

Kilaru Austin S AS Perrone Jeanmarie J Auriemma Catherine L CL Shofer Frances S FS Barg Frances K FK Meisel Zachary F ZF

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20140301 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>Physicians adopt evidence-based guidelines with variable consistency. Narratives, or stories, offer a novel dissemination strategy for clinical recommendations. The study objective was to compare whether evidence-based narrative versus traditional summary improved recall of opioid prescribing guidelines from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).<h4>Methods</h4>This was a prospective, randomized controlled experiment to compare whether narrative versus summary pr ...[more]

PMID: 24761456

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Deaths due to prescription opioid overdoses have increased dramatically. High-quality guidelines could help clinicians mitigate risks associated with opioid therapy. PURPOSE:To evaluate the quality and content of guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, specialty society Web sites, and international guideline clearinghouses (searched in July 2013). STUDY SELECTION:Guidelines published between January 2007 and July 2013 addressing the use of opioids for chronic pain in adults were selected. Guidelines on specific settings, populations, and conditions were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION:Guidelines and associated systematic reviews were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), respectively, and recommendations for mitigating opioid-related risks were compared. DATA SYNTHESIS:Thirteen guidelines met selection criteria. Overall AGREE II scores were 3.00 to 6.20 (on a scale of 1 to 7). The AMSTAR ratings were poor to fair for 10 guidelines. Two received high AGREE II and AMSTAR scores. Most guidelines recommend that clinicians avoid doses greater than 90 to 200 mg of morphine equivalents per day, have additional knowledge to prescribe methadone, recognize risks of fentanyl patches, titrate cautiously, and reduce doses by at least 25% to 50% when switching opioids. Guidelines also agree that opioid risk assessment tools, written treatment agreements, and urine drug testing can mitigate risks. Most recommendations are supported by observational data or expert consensus. LIMITATION:Exclusion of non-English-language guidelines and reliance on published information. CONCLUSION:Despite limited evidence and variable development methods, recent guidelines on chronic pain agree on several opioid risk mitigation strategies, including upper dosing thresholds; cautions with certain medications; attention to drug-drug and drug-disease interactions; and use of risk assessment tools, treatment agreements, and urine drug testing. Future research should directly examine the effectiveness of opioid risk mitigation strategies. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:California Department of Industrial Relations and California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation.

Project description:BackgroundClinician utilization of practice guidelines can reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing and harm in chronic non-cancer pain; yet, implementation of "opioid guidelines" is subpar. We hypothesized that a multi-component quality improvement (QI) augmentation of "routine" system-level implementation efforts would increase clinician adherence to the opioid guideline-driven policy recommendations.MethodsOpioid policy was implemented system-wide in 26 primary care clinics. A convenience sample of 9 clinics received the QI augmentation (one-hour academic detailing; 2 online educational modules; 4-6 monthly one-hour practice facilitation sessions) in this non-randomized stepped-wedge QI project. The QI participants were volunteer clinic staff. The target patient population was adults with chronic non-cancer pain treated with long-term opioids. The outcomes included the clinic-level percentage of target patients with a current treatment agreement (primary outcome), rates of opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing, urine drug testing, depression and opioid misuse risk screening, and prescription drug monitoring database check; additional measures included daily morphine-equivalent dose (MED), and the percentages of all target patients and patients prescribed ≥90 mg/day MED. T-test, mixed-regression and stepped-wedge-based analyses evaluated the QI impact, with significance and effect size assessed with two-tailed p < 0.05, 95% confidence intervals and/or Cohen's d.ResultsTwo-hundred-fifteen QI participants, a subset of clinical staff, received at least one QI component; 1255 patients in the QI and 1632 patients in the 17 comparison clinics were prescribed long-term opioids. At baseline, more QI than comparison clinic patients were screened for depression (8.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.019) and prescribed ≥90 mg/day MED (23.0% vs 15.5%, p = 0.038). The stepped-wedge analysis did not show statistically significant changes in outcomes in the QI clinics, when accounting for the comparison clinics' trends. The Cohen's d values favored the QI clinics in all outcomes except opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing. Subgroup analysis showed that patients prescribed ≥90 mg/day MED in the QI compared to comparison clinics improved urine drug screening rates (38.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.02), but not other outcomes (p ≥ 0.05).ConclusionsAugmenting routine policy implementation with targeted QI intervention, delivered to volunteer clinic staff, did not additionally improve clinic-level, opioid guideline-concordant care metrics. However, the observed effect sizes suggested this approach may be effective, especially in higher-risk patients, if broadly implemented.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:ImportanceOpioids are frequently prescribed to children and adolescents after surgery. Prescription opioid misuse is associated with high-risk behavior in youth. Evidence-based guidelines for opioid prescribing practices in children are lacking.ObjectiveTo assemble a multidisciplinary team of health care experts and leaders in opioid stewardship, review current literature regarding opioid use and risks unique to pediatric populations, and develop a broad framework for evidence-based opioid prescribing guidelines for children who require surgery.Evidence reviewReviews of relevant literature were performed including all English-language articles published from January 1, 1988, to February 28, 2019, found via searches of the PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Pediatric was defined as children younger than 18 years. Animal and experimental studies, case reports, review articles, and editorials were excluded. Selected articles were graded using tools from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2011 levels of evidence. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was applied throughout guideline creation. Consensus was determined using a modified Delphi technique.FindingsOverall, 14 574 articles were screened for inclusion, with 217 unique articles included for qualitative synthesis. Twenty guideline statements were generated from a 2-day in-person meeting and subsequently reviewed, edited, and endorsed externally by pediatric surgical specialists, the American Pediatric Surgery Association Board of Governors, the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Surgery Executive Committee, and the American College of Surgeons Board of Regents. Review of the literature and guideline statements underscored 3 primary themes: (1) health care professionals caring for children who require surgery must recognize the risks of opioid misuse associated with prescription opioids, (2) nonopioid analgesic use should be optimized in the perioperative period, and (3) patient and family education regarding perioperative pain management and safe opioid use practices must occur both before and after surgery.Conclusions and relevanceThese are the first opioid-prescribing guidelines to address the unique needs of children who require surgery. Health care professionals caring for children and adolescents in the perioperative period should optimize pain management and minimize risks associated with opioid use by engaging patients and families in opioid stewardship efforts.

Dataset Information

Evidence-based narratives to improve recall of opioid prescribing guidelines: a randomized experiment.

Publications

Evidence-based narratives to improve recall of opioid prescribing guidelines: a randomized experiment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets