Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24833113›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2014

How clinicians use prescription drug monitoring programs: a qualitative inquiry.

Christi Hildebran, Deborah J Cohen, Jessica M Irvine, Carol Foley, Nicole O'Kane, Todd Beran, Richard A Deyo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Factors Influencing Judgments to Consult Prescription Monitoring Programs: A Factorial Survey Experiment.Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Christi HildebranAcumentra Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Deborah J Cohen
Jessica M Irvine
Carol Foley
Nicole O'Kane
Todd Beran
Richard A Deyo

Funding

OREGON CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTEUL1RR024140 · NCRR · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI ORWOLL, ERIC S. · 2006 to 2011
$61.1M
Oregon Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR000128 · NCATS · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI ELLISON, DAVID H · 2012 to 2015
$28.7M
Use of Prescription Monitoring Programs to Improve Patient Care and OutcomesR01DA031208 · NIDA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI DEYO, RICHARD A · 2012 to 2016
$2.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000128NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024140NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR024140NIDA NIH HHS 1 R01 DA031208-01A1NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA031208
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are now active in most states to assist clinicians in identifying potential controlled drug misuse, diversion, or excessive prescribing. Little is still known about the ways in which they are incorporated into workflow and clinical decision making, what barriers continue to exist, and how clinicians are sharing PDMP results with their patients.

designQualitative data were collected through online focus groups and telephone interviews.

settingClinicians from pain management, emergency and family medicine, psychiatry/behavioral health, rehabilitation medicine, internal medicine and dentistry participated. PATIENTS: Thirty-five clinicians from nine states participated.

methodsWe conducted two online focus groups and seven telephone interviews. A multidisciplinary team then used a grounded theory approach coupled with an immersion-crystallization strategy for identifying key themes in the resulting transcripts.

resultsSome participants, mainly from pain clinics, reported checking the PDMP with every patient, every time. Others checked only for new patients, for new opioid prescriptions, or for patients for whom they suspected abuse. Participants described varied approaches to sharing PDMP information with patients, including openly discussing potential addiction or safety concerns, avoiding discussion altogether, and approaching discussion confrontationally. Participants described patient anger or denial as a common response and noted the role of patient satisfaction surveys as an influence on prescribing.

conclusionRoutines for accessing PDMP data and how clinicians respond to it vary widely. As PDMP use becomes more widespread, it will be important to understand what approaches are most effective for identifying and addressing unsafe medication use.

Indexed as

Data CollectionDrug MonitoringFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prescription DrugsSubstance-Related DisordersPrescription DrugsDoctor-Patient InteractionPDMPPrescription Drug Abuse

Identifiers

PMID24833113
PMCPMC4180422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.