ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021
A National Survey on Patient Provider Agreements When Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consensus statement on chronic pain treatment in cancer survivors.Journal of anesthesia · 2025Review
- Opioid risk-reduction strategies for people with HIV on chronic opioid therapy: A qualitative study of patient perspectives.SSM. Mental health · 2024Article
- The Legal Landscape for Opioid Treatment Agreements.The Milbank quarterly · 2024Article
- The development of a safe opioid use agreement for surgical care using a modified Delphi method.PloS one · 2023Article
- Primary care management of Long-Term opioid therapy.Annals of medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany national guidelines recommend the use of patient provider agreements (PPAs) when prescribing opioids for chronic pain. There are no standards for PPA content, readability, or administration processes.
objectiveConduct a national survey of providers who use PPAs to describe the process of administering them, assess views on their utility, and obtain PPAs to evaluate thematic content and readability.
designCross-sectional electronic survey and request for PPAs.
participantsRegistrants for the Safer/Competent Opioid Prescribing Education (SCOPE of Pain) Program between March 2013 and June 2017. MAIN MEASURES: Respondents' reports on how PPAs are administered and views on their usefulness. A sample of PPAs assessed for themes and readability. KEY
resultsUsing a convenience sample of 62,530 SCOPE of Pain registrants, we obtained a cohort of 430 individuals from 43 states who use PPAs. The majority of respondents worked in primary care (64%) and pain (18%) specialties. Reviewing PPAs with patients was primarily done by prescribers (80%), and the average perceived time to administer PPAs was 13 min. Although 66% of respondents thought PPAs were "often" or "always" worth the effort, only 28% considered them "often" or "always" effective in reducing opioid misuse. The PPA reading burden surpassed recommended patient education standards, with only 2.5% at or below fifth-grade reading level. PPAs focused more on rules and consequences of patients' non-compliance than on a shared treatment plan.
conclusionsMost respondents perceive patient provider agreements (PPAs) as time-consuming and minimally effective in reducing opioid misuse yet still view them as valuable. PPAs are written far above recommended reading levels and serve primarily to convey consequences of non-compliance. Because PPAs are recommended by national safer opioid prescribing guidelines as a risk mitigation strategy, it would be beneficial to develop a standard PPA and study its effectiveness.
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.