Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36289483›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2022

Educating physicians on strong opioids by descriptive versus simulated-experience formats: a randomized controlled trial.

Odette Wegwarth, Claudia Spies, Wolf-Dieter Ludwig, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff, Günther Jonitz, Ralph Hertwig

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Odette WegwarthCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany. wegwarth@mpib-berlin.mpg.de.
Claudia SpiesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Wolf-Dieter LudwigDrug Commission of the German Medical Association, Berlin, Germany.
Norbert Donner-BanzhoffDepartment of Primary Care, Phillips University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Günther JonitzBerlin Chamber of Physicians, Berlin, Germany.
Ralph HertwigCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany.
Max Planck Institute for Human Development · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEGerman Medical Association · DEPhilipps University of Marburg · DE

Funding

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit 2519ATS001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLong-term prescriptions of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain-which are not supported by scientific evidence-suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Because risk perceptions and behaviors can differ depending on whether people learn about risks through description or experience, we investigated the effects of descriptive versus simulated-experience educative formats on physicians' risk perceptions of strong opioids and their prescription behavior for managing chronic noncancer pain.

methodsThree hundred general practitioners and 300 pain specialists in Germany-enrolled separately in two independent exploratory randomized controlled online trials-were randomly assigned to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated-experience format (interactive simulation). PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: Objective risk perception (numerical estimates of opioids' benefits and harms), actual prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain. SECONDARY ENDPOINT: Implementation of intended prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain.

resultsBoth formats improved the proportion of correct numerical estimates of strong opioids' benefits and harms immediately after intervention, with no notable differences between formats. Compared to description, simulated experience led to significantly lower reported actual prescription rates for strong and/or weak opioids, and was more effective at increasing prescription rates for non-drug-based therapies (e.g., means of opioid reduction) from baseline to follow-up for both general practitioners and pain specialists. Simulated experience also resulted in a higher implementation of intended behavior for some drug-based and non-drug-based therapies.

conclusionsThe two formats, which recruit different cognitive processes, may serve different risk-communication goals: If the goal is to improve exact risk perception, descriptive and simulated-experience formats are likely to be equally suitable. If, however, the goal is to boost less risky prescription habits, simulated experience may be the better choice.

trial registrationDRKS00020358 (German Clinical Trials Register, first registration: 07/01/2020).

Indexed as

Chronic PainPhysiciansAnalgesics, OpioidGermanyHumansPain ManagementPractice Patterns, Physicians'Analgesics, OpioidDrug safetyPhysicians’ risk behaviorPhysicians’ risk perceptionRisk literacyStrong opioids

Identifiers

PMID36289483
PMCPMC9607791
OpenAlexW4307658745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.