ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
Clinician Perceptions About a Decision Support System to Identify and Manage Opioid Use Disorder.
Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and Facilitators to Using a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2024Article
- The potential impact of clinical decision support on nonwaivered primary care clinicians' prescribing of buprenorphine.Health affairs scholar · 2023Article
- Clinical Decision Support Systems: Contributions from 2021.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022Article
- Patient Perspectives on Opioid Risk Discussions in Primary Care.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAddressing the opioid epidemic would benefit from primary care clinicians identifying and managing opioid use disorder (OUD) during routine clinical encounters, but current rates are low. Clinical decision support (CDS) systems are a promising way to facilitate such interactions, but will clinicians use them?
methodsWe iteratively conducted semi-structured interviews with 8 purposively sampled primary care clinicians participating in a pilot OUD-CDS study to identify attitudes toward discussing OUD and preferences for support in doing so. Five of them had used a pilot version of the CDS for 6 months, while the others were in comparison clinics. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by a multi-disciplinary group of experienced researchers, using an editing organizing style where the analysts independently highlighted relevant text and then discussed to reach a consensus on themes.
resultsWe identified five themes: 1. Primary care is the right place to address OUD. 2. Both clinician-patient and clinician-clinician relationships affect how and whether clinicians address OUD in a particular patient encounter. 3. The main challenges are limited time and competing priorities for these complex patients. 4. Although a CDS for OUD could be very helpful, it must meet different needs for different clinicians and clinical situations and be simple to use. 5. For optimal benefit, the CDS needs to be complemented by supportive organizational policies and systems as well as local clinician encouragement.
conclusionsWith the right design and a supportive organization, these primary care clinicians believe a CDS could help them regularly identify and address OUD among their patients as long as it incorporates their concerns about relationships, competing priorities, patient complexity, and user simplicity.
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.