ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Stakeholder Involvement in the Development of a New Proactive Clinical Review of Patients Prescribed Opioid Medicines Long-Term for Persistent Pain in Primary Care.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStakeholder involvement is a core element of the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions, but approaches to involve stakeholders are not well-reported. We outline how stakeholders contributed to co-designing a Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long-term for persistent Pain led by Pharmacists working in primary care Teams (the PROMPPT intervention-a review and pharmacist training package).
methodsWe brought key stakeholders together to co-design the PROMPPT intervention using a person-based approach, alongside evidence from best practice guidance. We established a community of practice comprising three complementary groups: a patient advisory group, a pharmacist advisory group and a mixed stakeholder group. Patient stakeholders were identified from an existing patient involvement group. Professional stakeholders were identified using networks and social media. The three groups met in iterative workshops with predefined aims. We offered reimbursement for the stakeholders' time. OUTCOMES: The patient advisory group (n = 10), pharmacist advisory group (n = 6) and mixed stakeholder group (n = 16) each met for 2 or 3 workshops between April 2019 and February 2020. Stakeholders had expertise, often cross-cutting, in lived experience, persistent pain, opioids, delivering primary healthcare and/or promoting behaviour change. Patient stakeholders provided their perspectives of consulting about their pain and opioids. Pharmacist stakeholders provided their perspectives on how pain reviews were happening in practice and on considerations for training (e.g., vignettes and experiential learning were considered important). The mixed stakeholder group provided a breadth of views highlighting current practice, including the value of engaging the wider GP practice team, issues around clinical responsibility for prescribing and the fact that international clinical guidance was not always relevant to UK primary care.
conclusionsBy understanding the context of the PROMPPT intervention, stakeholders worked to develop a new pharmacist-led primary care review ahead of feasibility testing. We make recommendations for future developers of complex interventions. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient stakeholders, including a lay co-applicant (C.S.) supported by a PPI support worker (A.H.), helped develop and refine the intervention. C.S. and A.H. read and contributed to the initial manuscript and approved the final manuscript.
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.