ArticleAJPM focus2024
Randomized Pilot of a Clinical Decision Support Tool to Increase Suicide Screening for at-Risk Primary Care Patients With Opioid Use Disorder.
Article in AJPM focus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Individuals with opioid use disorder are at elevated suicide risk, but systematic screening in this population is rarely done. This study assessed the effects of targeted clinical decision support prompts on structured suicide risk assessment completion. Methods: The study used a cluster-randomized controlled pragmatic pilot design. Adult primary care patients (aged 18-75 years) with or at risk for opioid use disorder or opioid overdose and suicide were eligible. Patients sought care from 15 Midwestern primary care clinics between July, 31, 2021 and July, 31, 2022. Data were analyzed between March and June 2023. Clinicians in intervention and control clinics received a printout from rooming staff, prompted by a clinical decision support-generated electronic health record alert, suggesting clinicians talk with patients about opioid risks. Intervention clinician handouts also alerted them to patients estimated to be at increased suicide risk and recommended completion of a Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale to further evaluate suicide risk. The handouts for control clinicians did not include suicide risk alerts. The main outcome measured the completion of the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale in the 14 days following a visit. Results: A total of 115 eligible patients (69 intervention, 46 control) made at least 1 visit to a randomized clinic. Patients mean age was 39 years, and 57% were women; 48% of patients had a high risk of opioid use disorder or opioid overdose, 39% had an opioid use disorder diagnosis, 12% had an opioid use disorder in remission diagnosis, and 5% had a recent opioid overdose. Over a mean follow-up of 249 days, 20.3% of intervention patients and 17.4% of control patients had at least 1 Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale completed in the next 14 days ( Conclusions: This pilot study did not increase the uptake of structured suicide risk assessments in primary care for patients at elevated risk for opioid use disorder and suicide. More robust interventions are likely needed to promote suicide risk assessment in primary care.
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.