ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2025
Proactive clinical review of patients taking opioid medicines long term for persistent pain led by clinical pharmacists in primary care teams (PROMPPT): a non-randomised mixed methods feasibility study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the poor long-term effectiveness of opioids for persistent non-cancer pain, and their potential for harm, evidence-based interventions to address opioid overprescribing for persistent pain are needed. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of a primary care practice pharmacist-led intervention (PROMPPT review) for patients prescribed opioids for persistent pain and the feasibility of evaluating PROMPPT in a definitive trial.
methodsA single-arm study, with mixed methods process evaluation, was conducted in four English primary care practices. Adults prescribed opioids for ≥ 6 months were invited to participate in the Management of Opioids and Persistent Pain (MOPP) study by completing baseline and 3-month follow-up questionnaires. Practices invited a representative sample of MOPP participants to schedule a PROMPPT review, eight of which were audio-recorded. Following the review, pharmacists completed intervention delivery templates, and participants were sent an Acceptability Questionnaire and invited to consent to an interview.
resultsBetween November 2020 and May 2021, 148 participants were recruited to the MOPP study. Of these, 123 (83%) completed 3-month follow-up. Of 88 MOPP participants invited for a PROMPPT review, 80 (91%) attended. The review was rated completely acceptable or acceptable in 90% (45/50) of acceptability questionnaires returned. Overall, participants interviewed (n = 15) perceived the review as a good idea and recommended it to others; they preferred face-to-face consultations. Prior to the review, they reported mixed feelings, including feeling 'pleased' to be invited and 'grateful' someone was taking an interest, alongside concerns about what would happen during the review, including opioids being stopped and changes being detrimental. Following the review, those with a clear plan for follow-up/access to the pharmacist felt reassured about making changes to their pain medicines, whilst those advised to arrange follow-up as needed were less satisfied and more likely to report confusion about the plan.
conclusionsPROMPPT reviews appeared acceptable to patients, review uptake was high, and the study demonstrated the feasibility of a large definitive trial to evaluate PROMPPT. The review invitation, patient information, and pharmacist training were refined based on the findings ahead of a large cluster randomised controlled trial.
trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN87628403 , registered 31 July 2020.
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.