Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31659669›Full record

Observational studyJournal of general internal medicine2020

"It Sometimes Doesn't Even Work": Patient Opioid Assessments as Clues to Therapeutic Flexibility in Primary Care.

Stephen G Henry, Melissa M Gosdin, Anne E C White, Richard L Kravitz

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen G HenryDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA. sghenry@ucdavis.edu.
Melissa M GosdinCenter for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Anne E C WhiteDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Richard L KravitzDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
University of California, Davis · USCenter For Policy Research · US

Funding

UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000002 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BERGLUND, LARS F · 2012 to 2015
$12.2M
UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science CenterKL2TR000134 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BERGLUND, LARS F · 2012 to 2015
$3.1M
A clinician training intervention to improve pain-related communication, pain management and opioid prescribing in primary careK23DA043052 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI HENRY, STEPHEN G · 2017 to 2019
$591k
Harnessing patient narratives to promote opioid tapering in primary careR21DA042269 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI HENRY, STEPHEN G · 2016 to 2017
$432k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000134NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians' fear of difficult patient interactions is an important barrier to discontinuing long-term opioid therapy.

objectiveTo identify patient statements about opioids that indicate potential openness to tapering opioids or trying non-opioid pain treatments

designThis is an observational study of regularly scheduled primary care visits involving discussion of chronic pain management. A coding system to characterize patient assessments about opioids, physician responses to assessments, and patient-endorsed opioid side effects was developed and applied to transcripts of video-recorded visits. All visits were independently coded by 2 authors.

participantsEighty-six established adult patients taking opioids for chronic pain; 49 physicians in 2 academic primary care clinics MAIN MEASURES: Frequency and topic of patients' opioid assessments; proportion of opioid assessments classified as clues (assessments indicating potential willingness to consider non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses); physician responses to patient clues; frequency and type of patient-endorsed side effects KEY

resultsPatients made a mean of 3.2 opioid assessments (median 2) per visit. The most common assessment topics were pain relief (51%), effect on function (21%), and opioid safety (14%). Forty-seven percent of opioid assessments (mean 1.5 per visit) were classified as clues. Fifty-three percent of visits included ≥ 1 clue; 21% of visits contained ≥ 3 clues. Physicians responded to patient clues with no/minimal response 43% of the time, sympathetic/empathetic statements 14% of the time, and further explored clues 43% of the time. Fifty-eight percent of patients endorsed ≥ 1 opioid-related side effect; 10% endorsed ≥ 3 side effects. The most commonly endorsed side effects were constipation (15% of patients), sedation (15%), withdrawal symptoms (13%), and nausea (12%).

conclusionsPatient statements suggesting openness to non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses are common during routine primary care visits. Listening for and exploring these clues may be a patient-centered strategy for broaching difficult topics with patients on long-term opioid therapy.

Indexed as

Chronic PainPhysiciansAdultAnalgesics, OpioidHumansPain ManagementPrimary Health CareAnalgesics, Opioidchronic paindoctor-patient relationshealth communicationopioid analgesicspatient-centered careprimary caretapering

Identifiers

PMID31659669
PMCPMC7280428
OpenAlexW2982576810

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.