ArticleSubstance abuse : research and treatment2021
Effects of Implementation and Enforcement Differences in Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in 3 States: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.
Article in Substance abuse : research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use Mandate and Opioid Prescribing and Patient-reported Outcomes After Surgery.Annals of surgery · 2025Article
- Association Between Discharge Medications and Oncologic Post-Embolization-Syndrome-Related Outcomes.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Purposeful Shared Decision-Making in Caring for and with Patients with Chronic Pain Receiving Opioid Therapy.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- How competing needs after incarceration lead to adverse health outcomes among people who use criminalized drugs.BMC global and public health · 2025Review
- Changes in orthopaedic prescribing patterns of gabapentin associated with state prescribing restrictions: A large database study.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Prescription drug monitoring program in Australia: a qualitative study of stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of a state-wide implementation.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Evaluating State-Level Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and Pill Mill Effects on Opioid Consumption in Pharmaceutical Supply Chain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Cycles of Chronic Opioid Therapy Following Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Legislation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- The effects of opioid policy changes on transitions from prescription opioids to heroin, fentanyl and injection drug use: a qualitative analysis.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2022Article
- A qualitative examination of naloxone access in three states: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.BMC public health · 2022Article
- "The DEA would come in and destroy you": a qualitative study of fear and unintended consequences among opioid prescribers in WV.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2022Article
- Association of Socioeconomic and Psychiatric Factors with Postoperative Opioid Use Disorder: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Substance use : research and treatmentArticle
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPrescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) were designed to curb opioid misuse and diversion by tracking scheduled medications prescribed by medical providers and dispensed by pharmacies. The effects of PDMPs on opioid prescription, misuse and overdose rates have been mixed due in part to variability in states' PDMPs and difficulties measuring this complexity, and a lack of attention to implementation and enforcement of PDMP components. The current study uses qualitative interviews with key informants from 3 states with different PDMPs, Connecticut, Kentucky and Wisconsin to explore differences in the characteristics of the PDMPs in each state; how they are implemented, monitored and enforced; and unintended negative consequences of these programs.
methodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with key informants from each state representing the following sectors: PDMP and pain clinic regulation agencies, Medicaid programs, state licensing boards, pharmacies, emergency medicine departments, pain management clinics, first responders, drug courts, drug treatment programs, medication assisted treatment (MAT) providers, and harm reduction organizations. Interview guides explored participants' experiences with and opinions of PDMPs according to their roles. Data analysis was conducted using a collaborative, constant comparison method.
resultsWhile all 3 states had mandated registration and reporting requirements, the states differed in the implementation and enforcement of these and the extent to which provider prescribing was monitored. These, in turn, influenced how medical providers perceived the PDMP and changed how providers prescribed opioids. Unintended consequences of state PDMPs included under-prescribing for pain and "dumping" patients who were long term users of opioids or who had developed opioid use disorders and may explain the increase in illicit heroin or opioid use.
conclusionState PDMPs with similar mandates may differ greatly in implementation and enforcement. These differences are important to consider when determining the effects of PDMPs on opioid misuse and overdose.
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.