Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36340571›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2022

Patient Perspectives on Opioid Risk Discussions in Primary Care.

Stephanie A Hooker, Inih J Essien, Caitlin M Borgert-Spaniol, Rebecca C Rossom, Anthony W Olson, Katrina M Romagnoli, Leif I Solberg

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie A HookerResearch Division, HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN.
Inih J EssienResearch Division, HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN.
Caitlin M Borgert-SpaniolResearch Division, HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN.
Rebecca C RossomResearch Division, HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN.
Anthony W OlsonEssentia Institute of Rural Health, Essentia Health, Duluth, MN.
Katrina M RomagnoliDepartment of Translational Data Science and Informatics, Geisinger, Danville, PA.
Leif I SolbergResearch Division, HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN.
HealthPartners · USGeisinger Medical Center · US

Funding

Suicide Prediction and Prevention for People at Risk for Opioid Use DisorderUG1DA040316 · NIDA · HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GAVIN BART · 2015 to 2026
$42.2M
NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA040316
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Both patients and clinicians have described discussions of potential opioid risks as challenging. This study's goal was to understand patient perspectives on discussing opioid risks with primary care clinicians (PCCs). Methods: Patients identified to be at elevated risk for problems with opioids (ie, opioid use disorder [OUD] diagnosis, taking a medication for OUD, or having ≥3 opioid prescriptions in the last year) were recruited from an integrated, Upper Midwest health system to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Interview questions aimed to better understand patient views on conversations about opioid risks with PCCs and perceptions of OUD screening and treatment in primary care. Interviews were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: A total of 20 patients participated (mean age: 53.5 years; 65% male). Six themes emerged: 1) archetypes of patient relationships with opioids (long-term opioid use, acute opioid use, OUD in treatment, OUD no treatment) require different approaches in discussing opioid risks; 2) patients may develop their own archetypes about PCCs and opioids; 3) these archetypes may help guide how conversations about opioids are conducted (eg, PCC demeanor, terminology); 4) most patients believe that primary care is an appropriate setting for opioid risk discussions; 5) patients may have limited awareness of the availability and value of overdose rescue medications; and 6) handouts are more acceptable if perceived to come from the PCC's assessment instead of a computer. Conclusions: Results suggest that patients generally perceive discussing opioid risks with PCCs acceptable. PCCs should tailor opioid risk conversations to patients' specific situations and needs.

Indexed as

decision-makinghealth careopioid use disorderpatient-clinician relationshipqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID36340571
PMCPMC9584087
OpenAlexW4306684262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.