Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35105588›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

General practitioners' attitudes towards opioids for non-cancer pain: a qualitative systematic review.

Rani Punwasi, L de Kleijn, J B M Rijkels-Otters, M Veen, Alessandro Chiarotto, Bart Koes

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Patients' perspectives about the role of primary healthcare providers in long-term opioid therapy: a qualitative study in Dutch primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rani PunwasiDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands r.punwasi@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-6267-7709
L de KleijnDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands.
J B M Rijkels-OttersDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands.
M VeenDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands.
Alessandro ChiarottoDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2350-9945
Bart KoesDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWorldwide the use of opioids, both doctor-prescribed and illicit, has increased. In most countries, opioids are first prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). Identifying factors that influence GPs' opioid prescription decision-making may help reduce opioid misuse and overuse. We performed a systematic review to gain insight into GP attitudes towards opioid prescription and to identify possible solutions to promote changes in the field of primary care. DESIGN AND

settingSystematic review of qualitative studies reporting GPs' attitudes towards opioid use in non-cancer pain management.

methodsWe searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Study quality was evaluated with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, and their results were analysed using thematic analysis. Quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

resultsWe included 14 studies. Four themes were established using thematic analyses: (1) GPs caught in the middle of 'the opioid crisis'; (2) Are opioids always bad? (3) GPs' weighing scale, taking patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors into account; and (4) GPs' sense of powerlessness-lack of alternatives, support by specialists and lack of time in justifying non-prescriptions.

conclusionGP attitudes towards opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain are subject to several GP-related, patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors. Raising GP and patient awareness on the inefficacy of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain management and providing non-opioid alternatives to treat chronic pain might help to promote opioid reduction in primary care. More research is needed to develop practical guidelines on appropriate opioid prescribing, tapering off opioid use and adopting effective communication strategies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020194561.Cite Now.

Indexed as

Chronic PainGeneral PractitionersOpioid-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidAttitudeHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Analgesics, Opioidpain managementprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID35105588
PMCPMC8808445
OpenAlexW4210736360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.