Dataset Information

Initial development of patient-reported instrument assessing harm, efficacy, and misuse of long-term opioid therapy.

ABSTRACT: Guidelines on long-term opioid therapy recommend frequent reassessment of harm, efficacy, and misuse of these potentially harmful and sometimes ineffective medications. In primary care, there is a need for a brief, patient-reported instrument. This report details the initial steps in the development of such an instrument. An interdisciplinary team of clinician-scientists performed four discrete steps in this study: (1) conceptualization of the purpose and function of the instrument, (2) assembly of an item pool, (3) expert rating on which items were most important to include in the instrument, and (4) modification of expert-selected items based on a reading level check and cognitive interviews with patients. A diverse panel of 47 subject matter experts was presented with 69 items to rate on a 1-9 scale in terms of importance for inclusion in the instrument. The panel highly rated 37 items: 8 related to harm, 4 related to efficacy, and 25 related to misuse. These 37 items were then tested for patient comprehension and modified as needed. Next steps in development will include further item reduction, testing against a gold standard, and assessment of the instrument's effect on clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Becker WC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4806533 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Initial development of patient-reported instrument assessing harm, efficacy, and misuse of long-term opioid therapy.

Becker William C WC Fiellin David A DA Black Anne C AC Kostovich Carol T CT Kerns Robert D RD Fraenkel Liana L

Journal of rehabilitation research and development 20160101 1

Guidelines on long-term opioid therapy recommend frequent reassessment of harm, efficacy, and misuse of these potentially harmful and sometimes ineffective medications. In primary care, there is a need for a brief, patient-reported instrument. This report details the initial steps in the development of such an instrument. An interdisciplinary team of clinician-scientists performed four discrete steps in this study: (1) conceptualization of the purpose and function of the instrument, (2) assembly ...[more]

PMID: 27006339

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Measures that reflect patients' assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The methodological approach used in the pre-validation development of new instruments (item generation, item reduction and question formatting) should be robust and transparent. The totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition provides a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new instruments. Such 'top down' approaches are common, but the explicit pre-validation methods are often poorly reported. This paper presents a systematic and generalisable 5-step pre-validation PRO instrument methodology. METHODS:The method is illustrated using the example of the Aberdeen Glaucoma Questionnaire (AGQ). The five steps are: 1) Generation of a pool of items; 2) Item de-duplication (three phases); 3) Item reduction (two phases); 4) Assessment of the remaining items' content coverage against a pre-existing theoretical framework appropriate to the objectives of the instrument and the target population (e.g. ICF); and 5) qualitative exploration of the target populations' views of the new instrument and the items it contains. RESULTS:The AGQ 'item pool' contained 725 items. Three de-duplication phases resulted in reduction of 91, 225 and 48 items respectively. The item reduction phases discarded 70 items and 208 items respectively. The draft AGQ contained 83 items with good content coverage. The qualitative exploration ('think aloud' study) resulted in removal of a further 15 items and refinement to the wording of others. The resultant draft AGQ contained 68 items. CONCLUSIONS:This study presents a novel methodology for developing a PRO instrument, based on three sources: literature reporting what is important to patient; theoretically coherent framework; and patients' experience of completing the instrument. By systematically accounting for all items dropped after the item generation phase, our method ensures that the AGQ is developed in a transparent, replicable manner and is fit for validation. We recommend this method to enhance the likelihood that new PRO instruments will be appropriate to the research context in which they are used, acceptable to research participants and likely to generate valid data.

Project description:BackgroundPharmacy-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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsMost 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.ConclusionsThrough 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.

Project description:ImportancePrescription opioid misuse is a national crisis. Few interventions have improved adherence to opioid-prescribing guidelines.ObjectiveTo determine whether a multicomponent intervention, Transforming Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care (TOPCARE; http://mytopcare.org/), improves guideline adherence while decreasing opioid misuse risk.Design, setting, and participantsCluster-randomized clinical trial among 53 primary care clinicians (PCCs) and their 985 patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. The study was conducted from January 2014 to March 2016 in 4 safety-net primary care practices.InterventionsIntervention PCCs received nurse care management, an electronic registry, 1-on-1 academic detailing, and electronic decision tools for safe opioid prescribing. Control PCCs received electronic decision tools only.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included documentation of guideline-concordant care (both a patient-PCC agreement in the electronic health record and at least 1 urine drug test [UDT]) over 12 months and 2 or more early opioid refills. Secondary outcomes included opioid dose reduction (ie, 10% decrease in morphine-equivalent daily dose [MEDD] at trial end) and opioid treatment discontinuation. Adjusted outcomes controlled for differing baseline patient characteristics: substance use diagnosis, mental health diagnoses, and language.ResultsOf the 985 participating patients, 519 were men, and 466 were women (mean [SD] patient age, 54.7 [11.5] years). Patients received a mean (SD) MEDD of 57.8 (78.5) mg. At 1 year, intervention patients were more likely than controls to receive guideline-concordant care (65.9% vs 37.8%; P < .001; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 6.0; 95% CI, 3.6-10.2), to have a patient-PCC agreement (of the 376 without an agreement at baseline, 53.8% vs 6.0%; P < .001; AOR, 11.9; 95% CI, 4.4-32.2), and to undergo at least 1 UDT (74.6% vs 57.9%; P < .001; AOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5.0). There was no difference in odds of early refill receipt between groups (20.7% vs 20.1%; AOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8). Intervention patients were more likely than controls to have either a 10% dose reduction or opioid treatment discontinuation (AOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1; P < .001). In adjusted analyses, intervention patients had a mean (SE) MEDD 6.8 (1.6) mg lower than controls (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceA multicomponent intervention improved guideline-concordant care but did not decrease early opioid refills.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01909076.

Dataset Information

Initial development of patient-reported instrument assessing harm, efficacy, and misuse of long-term opioid therapy.

Publications

Initial development of patient-reported instrument assessing harm, efficacy, and misuse of long-term opioid therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets