Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27794549›Full record

ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2017

Clinicians' Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in Clinical Practice and Decision-Making.

Gillian J Leichtling, Jessica M Irvine, Christi Hildebran, Deborah J Cohen, Sara E Hallvik, Richard A Deyo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Gillian J LeichtlingHealthInsight Oregon, Portland, Oregon.
Jessica M IrvineOCHIN, Inc., Portland, Oregon.
Christi HildebranHealthInsight Oregon, Portland, Oregon.
Deborah J CohenDepartments of Family Medicine.
Sara E HallvikHealthInsight Oregon, Portland, Oregon.
Richard A DeyoDepartments of Family Medicine.

Funding

OREGON CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTEUL1RR024140 · NCRR · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI ORWOLL, ERIC S. · 2006 to 2011
$61.1M
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
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024140NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA031208
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Little is known about clinicians' use of prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) profiles in decision-making. The objective of this qualitative study was to understand how clinicians use, interpret, and integrate PDMP profiles with other information in making clinical decisions. Design: Qualitative interviews of clinician PDMP users. Setting: Oregon registrants in the state's PDMP. Subjects: Thirty-three clinicians practicing in primary care, emergency medicine, pain management, psychiatry, dentistry, and surgery. Methods: We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with PDMP users. A multidisciplinary team used a grounded theory approach to identify patterns of PDMP use and how PDMP profiles influence clinical decisions. Results: PDMP use varied from consistent monitoring to checking the PDMP only on suspicion of misuse, with inconsistent use reported particularly among short-term prescribers. Primary care clinicians reported less routine use with existing pain patients than with new patients. In response to worrisome PDMP profiles with new patients, participants reported declining to prescribe, except in the case of acute, verifiable conditions. Long-term prescribers reported sometimes continuing prescriptions for existing patients depending on perceived patient intent, honesty, and opioid misuse risk. Some long-term prescribers reported discharging patients from their practices due to worrisome PDMP profiles; others expressed strong ethical grounds for retaining patients but discontinuing controlled substances. Conclusion: Greater consistency is needed in use of PDMP in monitoring existing patients and in conformity to guidelines against discharging patients from practice. Research is needed to determine optimal approaches to interpreting PDMP profiles in relation to clinical judgment, patient screeners, and other information.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicMalePhysiciansPrescription Drug Monitoring ProgramsPrescription DrugsPrescription DrugsClinical DecisionsDischargeDiscontinuePDMPPrescription Opioids

Identifiers

PMID27794549
PMCPMC6279297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.