Dataset Information

Development of a Brief Patient-Administered Screening Tool for Prescription Opioid Dependence for Primary Care Settings.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop a short, patient-administered screening tool that will allow for earlier assessment of prescription opioid dependence (often referred to as addiction) in primary care settings.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional analysis (N = 1,134) from the two-year time point of the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) cohort was used in the scale development.

Subjects

Participants who completed two-year interviews in the POINT study, a prospective cohort study that followed people with chronic noncancer pain over a five-year period, and who were prescribed strong opioids for a minimum of six weeks at baseline.

Methods

An advisory committee provided advice on wording and content for screening in primary care settings. Univariate logistic regression identified individual items that were significantly associated with meeting ICD-11 criteria for prescription opioid dependence. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) were conducted, and items were reduced to identify a small item set that were discriminative and shared a simple underlying structure.

Results

Sixty-four variables associated with ICD-11 criteria for prescription opioid dependence were initially identified. Four rounds of EFA were performed, resulting in five items remaining. CFA identified two possible four-item combinations, with the final combination chosen based on greater item endorsement and the results of goodness-of-fit indices.

Conclusions

Addressing prescription opioid dependence is an important part of the global public health challenge surrounding rising opioid-related harm. This study addresses an important initial requisite step to develop a brief screening tool. Further studies are required to validate the tool in clinical settings.

SUBMITTER: Nielsen S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8204889 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextNo randomized trials have examined treatments for prescription opioid dependence, despite its increasing prevalence.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of brief and extended buprenorphine hydrochloride-naloxone hydrochloride treatment, with different counseling intensities, for patients dependent on prescription opioids.DesignMultisite, randomized clinical trial using a 2-phase adaptive treatment research design. Brief treatment (phase 1) included 2-week buprenorphine-naloxone stabilization, 2-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up. Patients with successful opioid use outcomes exited the study; unsuccessful patients entered phase 2: extended (12-week) buprenorphine-naloxone treatment, 4-week taper, and 8-week postmedication follow-up.SettingTen US sites. Patients A total of 653 treatment-seeking outpatients dependent on prescription opioids.InterventionsIn both phases, patients were randomized to standard medical management (SMM) or SMM plus opioid dependence counseling; all received buprenorphine-naloxone.Main outcome measuresPredefined "successful outcome" in each phase: composite measures indicating minimal or no opioid use based on urine test-confirmed self-reports.ResultsDuring phase 1, only 6.6% (43 of 653) of patients had successful outcomes, with no difference between SMM and SMM plus opioid dependence counseling. In contrast, 49.2% (177 of 360) attained successful outcomes in phase 2 during extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment (week 12), with no difference between counseling conditions. Success rates 8 weeks after completing the buprenorphine-naloxone taper (phase 2, week 24) dropped to 8.6% (31 of 360), again with no counseling difference. In secondary analyses, successful phase 2 outcomes were more common while taking buprenorphine-naloxone than 8 weeks after taper (49.2% [177 of 360] vs 8.6% [31 of 360], P < .001). Chronic pain did not affect opioid use outcomes; a history of ever using heroin was associated with lower phase 2 success rates while taking buprenorphine-naloxone.ConclusionsPrescription opioid-dependent patients are most likely to reduce opioid use during buprenorphine-naloxone treatment; if tapered off buprenorphine-naloxone, even after 12 weeks of treatment, the likelihood of an unsuccessful outcome is high, even in patients receiving counseling in addition to SMM.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Prescription opioid dependence is increasing and creates a significant public health burden, but primary care physicians lack evidence-based guidelines to decide between tapering doses followed by discontinuation of buprenorphine hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride therapy (hereinafter referred to as buprenorphine therapy) or ongoing maintenance therapy. OBJECTIVE:To determine the efficacy of buprenorphine taper vs ongoing maintenance therapy in primary care-based treatment for prescription opioid dependence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a 14-week randomized clinical trial that enrolled 113 patients with prescription opioid dependence from February 17, 2009, through February 1, 2013, in a single primary care site. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomized to buprenorphine taper (taper condition) or ongoing buprenorphine maintenance therapy (maintenance condition). The buprenorphine taper was initiated after 6 weeks of stabilization, lasted for 3 weeks, and included medications for opioid withdrawal, after which patients were offered naltrexone treatment. The maintenance group received ongoing buprenorphine therapy. All patients received physician and nurse support and drug counseling. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Illicit opioid use via results of urinanalysis and patient report, treatment retention, and reinitiation of buprenorphine therapy (taper group only). RESULTS:During the trial, the mean percentage of urine samples negative for opioids was lower for patients in the taper group (35.2% [95% CI, 26.2%-44.2%]) compared with those in the maintenance group (53.2% [95% CI, 44.3%-62.0%]). Patients in the taper group reported more days per week of illicit opioid use than those in the maintenance group once they were no longer receiving buprenorphine (mean use, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.60-1.94] vs 0.47 [95% CI, 0.19-0.74] days). Patients in the taper group had fewer maximum consecutive weeks of opioid abstinence compared with those in the maintenance group (mean abstinence, 2.70 [95% CI, 1.72-3.75] vs 5.20 [95% CI, 4.16-6.20] weeks). Patients in the taper group were less likely to complete the trial (6 of 57 [11%] vs 37 of 56 [66%]; P?<?.001). Sixteen patients in the taper group reinitiated buprenorphine treatment after the taper owing to relapse. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Tapering is less efficacious than ongoing maintenance treatment in patients with prescription opioid dependence who receive buprenorphine therapy in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00555425.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The TAPS Tool is a substance use screening and brief assessment instrument that was developed for use in primary care medical settings. It is one of the first screening instruments to provide rapid assessment of all commonly used substance classes, including illicit and prescription opioids, and is one of the only available screeners designed and validated in an electronic self-administered format (myTAPS). This secondary analysis of data from the TAPS Tool validation study describes the feasibility and acceptability of the myTAPS among primary care patients. METHODS:Adult patients (N?=?2000) from five primary care clinics completed the TAPS Tool on a tablet computer (myTAPS), and in an interviewer-administered format. Requests for assistance and time required were tracked, and participants completed a survey on ease of use, utilization of audio guidance, and format preference. Logistic regression was used to examine outcomes in defined subpopulations, including groups that may have greater difficulty completing an electronic screener, and those that may prefer an electronic self-administered approach. RESULTS:Almost all participants (98.3%) reported that the myTAPS was easy to use. The median time to complete myTAPS screening was 4.0 min (mean 4.48, standard deviation 2.57). More time was required by participants who were older, Hispanic, Black, or reported non-medical prescription drug use, while less time was required by women. Assistance was requested by 25% of participants, and was more frequently requested by those who with lower education (OR?=?2.08, 95% CI 1.62-2.67) or age?>?65 years (OR?=?2.79, 95% CI 1.98-3.93). Audio guidance was utilized by 18.3%, and was more frequently utilized by participants with lower education (OR?=?2.01, 95% CI 1.54-2.63), age?>?65 years (OR?=?1.79, 95% CI 1.22-2.61), or Black race (OR?=?1.30, 95% 1.01-1.68). The myTAPS format was preferred by women (OR?=?1.29, 95% CI 1.00-1.66) and individuals with drug use (OR?=?1.43, 95% CI 1.09-1.88), while participants with lower education preferred the interviewer-administered format (OR?=?2.75, 95% CI 2.00-3.78). CONCLUSIONS:Overall, myTAPS screening was feasible and well accepted by adult primary care patients. Clinics adopting electronic screening should be prepared to offer assistance to some patients, particularly those who are older or less educated, and should have the capacity to use an interviewer-administered approach when required.

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:BackgroundSocial isolation is a known predictor of mortality that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations in the USA. Although experts began to recognize it as a public health crisis prior to 2020, the novel coronavirus pandemic has accelerated recognition of social isolation as a serious threat to health and well-being.ObjectiveExamine patient experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation in primary care settings, and whether patient experiences with these activities are associated with the severity of reported social isolation.DesignCross-sectional survey conducted in 2018.ParticipantsAdults (N = 251) were recruited from 3 primary care clinics in Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco.Main measuresA modified version of the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index (SNI), endorsed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; items to assess for prior experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation.Key resultsIn the sample population, 12.4% reported the highest levels of social isolation (SNI = 0/1), compared to 36.7%, 34.7%, and 16.3% (SNI = 2-4, respectively). Most patients had not been asked about social isolation in a healthcare setting (87.3%), despite reporting no discomfort with social isolation screening (93.9%). Neither discomfort with nor participation in prior screening for social isolation was associated with social isolation levels. Desire for assistance with social isolation (3.2%) was associated with a higher level of social isolation (AOR = 6.0, 95% CI, 1.3-28.8), as well as poor or fair health status (AOR = 9.1; 95% CI, 1.3-64.1).ConclusionsIn this study, few patients reported being screened previously for social isolation in a primary care setting, despite low levels of discomfort with screening. Providers should consider broadening social isolation screening and referral practices in healthcare settings, especially among sicker and more isolated patients who express higher levels of interest in assistance with social isolation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Integrating care for common mental disorders (CMDs) such as depression, anxiety and alcohol abuse into primary healthcare (PHC) should assist in reducing South Africa (SA)'s quadruple burden of disease. CMDs compromise treatment adherence, health behaviour change and self-management of illnesses. Appropriate identification of mental disorders in primary care can be facilitated by brief, easy-to-administer screening that promotes high specificity. OBJECTIVES:To establish the criterion-based validity of a seven-item Brief Mental Health (BMH) screening tool for assessing positive symptoms of CMDs in primary care patients. METHODS:A total of 1 214 participants were recruited from all patients aged ?18 years visiting 10 clinics as part of routine care in the Newcastle subdistrict of Amajuba District in KwaZulu-Natal Province, SA, over a period of 2 weeks. Consenting patients provided basic biographical information prior to screening with the BMH tool. PHC nurses remained blind to this assessment. PHC nurse-initiated assessment using the Adult Primary Care (APC) guidelines was the gold standard against which the performance of the BMH tool was compared. A specificity standard of 80% was used to establish cut-points. Specificity was favoured over sensitivity to ensure that those who did not have CMD symptoms were excluded, as well as to reduce over-referrals. RESULTS:Of the participants, 72% were female. The AUD-C (alcohol abuse) performed well (area under the curve (AUC) 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 - 0.95), cut-point ?4, Cronbach alpha 0.87); PHQ-2 (depression) performed reasonably well (AUC 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 - 0.78), cut-point ?3, alpha 0.71); and GAD-2 (anxiety) performance was acceptable (AUC 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 - 0.80), cut-point ?3, alpha 0.62). Using the higher cut-off scores, patients who truly did not have CMD symptoms had negative predictive values (NPVs) of >90%. Overall, 26% of patients had CMD positive symptoms relative to 8% using the APC guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:Using a higher specificity index, the positive predictive value and NPV show that at higher cut-point values the BMH not only helps identify individuals with alcohol misuse, depression and anxiety symptoms but also identifies a majority of those who do not have symptoms (true negatives), thus not overburdening nurses with false positives needing assessment. Research is needed to assess whether use of such a short and valid screening tool is generalisable to other clinic contexts as well as how mental health screening should best be introduced into routine clinic functioning and practice.