ArticlePain research & management
Continuing methadone for pain in palliative care.
Article in Pain research & management. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuing methadone for pain in palliative care.Pain research & managementArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMethadone is one of the most important medications used for the treatment of refractory pain in the palliative care setting, and is usually initially prescribed by one of a limited number of physicians who have acquired authorization for its use. A lack of authorized physicians able to take over prescribing when the patient is stable is a barrier to accessing methadone for analgesia.
objectiveTo determine the barriers to family physicians becoming authorized to prescribe methadone for pain in palliative care.
methodsA survey exploring the perceived barriers to continuing methadone for pain in palliative care following initial prescription by a specialist was mailed to a randomly selected group of 870 family physicians in British Columbia.
resultsThe response rate was 30.9%. Of the 204 responding physicians, 76.1% described themselves as positioned to provide ongoing palliative care to their patients. Within this group, 38 (18.6%) were already authorized to prescribe methadone for pain. The remaining 166 (81.4%) had significant knowledge deficits regarding methadone use in palliative care, but were largely aware of their deficits, and more than one-half were willing to learn more and to obtain an authorization if requested.
conclusionsResponding family physicians had mostly received little education regarding methadone for pain, but were aware of their need for education and were willing to learn. Physicians who had already become authorized were generally satisfied with the process of authorization, and believed the process of education through authorization was appropriate and not onerous.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.