ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Impact of codeine rescheduling on prescribing of codeine and other opioids: Interrupted time series analyses using Australian general practice data.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in analgesia prescribing in primary care in Ireland and England between 2014 and 2022: A repeated cross-sectional study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Impact of codeine rescheduling on prescribing of codeine and other opioids: Interrupted time series analyses using Australian general practice data.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsWe aimed to determine the impact of codeine rescheduling on prescribing of codeine and other opioids, with a focus on demographic and diagnoses associated with codeine prescribing before and after rescheduling of codeine to prescription-only in February 2018.
methodsWe used interrupted time series analysis (February 2016-February 2020) and probit regression to examine prescribing of codeine and other opioids according to primary care data from 464 general practice clinics in Victoria, Australia.
resultsThe rate of codeine prescribing increased in the month following rescheduling (additional 76 people/10000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 49-103), then declined to baseline rates (slope -2.02, 95% CI 3.79, -0.25). Prescribing of other opioids did not change. Post rescheduling, females were more likely to receive codeine prescriptions compared to males (β = 0.094, 95% CI 0.08-0.108) and those aged 70-79 years were more likely to receive codeine compared to those aged <30 years. Those residing in the least disadvantaged areas had a greater probability of being prescribed codeine than those in more disadvantaged areas after rescheduling (β = 0.154, 95% CI 0.129-0.179). A documented mental health diagnosis (β = 0.067, 95% CI 0.052-0.082) or migraine diagnosis (β = 0.057, 95% CI 0.037-0.078) was associated with increased likelihood of receiving a codeine prescription after rescheduling compared to before in contrast to those without such a diagnosis.
conclusionCodeine rescheduling did not result in a sustained increase in codeine prescribing nor a change in the prescribing of other opioids. Patient factors associated with increased codeine prescribing after compared to before rescheduling included female sex, older age, migraine diagnosis and comorbid mental health conditions. REGISTRATION: EU PAS Register (EUPAS43218).
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.