ArticleBJGP open2025
Realities of opioid and gabapentinoid deprescribing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: a qualitative evaluation.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare Practitioner and Other Professionals' Perspectives on Gabapentinoid Misuse and Dependence: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- At the Deep End of dental inequality.British dental journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOpioid and gabapentinoid prescribing has increased substantially in recent years despite having limited effectiveness in treating chronic primary pain. This is concerning, with the prescribing rates and adverse effects of these medications being higher in more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Guidance for prescribing and deprescribing these medications exists but the understanding of how deprescribing is operationalised, especially in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage, is limited.
aimTo explore primary healthcare professionals' views and experiences of designing and implementing an intervention to reduce opioid and gabapentinoid prescribing. DESIGN &
settingA qualitative evaluation, using participant observation and semi-structured interviews with primary healthcare professionals, working in practices serving areas of substantial socioeconomic disadvantage in the North East of England.
methodInterviewees were purposively recruited with subsequent snowballing with participant observation of the peer-support meetings. Interview transcripts and notes from the participant observation were inductively coded and thematically analysed.
resultThirteen healthcare professionals from five practices were interviewed. Person-centred care with shared decision-making was strived for, which was time-consuming owing to the complexity of the problem and patients. Where shared decision-making was not possible, owing to patient refusal or non-engagement, risk was used to determine the appropriate action. This work involved an emotional toll on staff and patients, but was at times conversely easier and more rewarding than expected. Ultimately, demedicalising pain with a culture change is required to ensure patients are not prescribed these medications for inappropriate reasons or doses.
conclusionThis study demonstrates key operational aspects to consider when undertaking opioid and gabapentinoid deprescribing in primary care, such as funding dedicated time to enable deprescribing.
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.