• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

不同干预措施对帮助初级保健临床医生避免阿片类药物初治急性非癌痛患者处方不安全阿片类药物的效果:一项群组随机临床试验。

Effect of Different Interventions to Help Primary Care Clinicians Avoid Unsafe Opioid Prescribing in Opioid-Naive Patients With Acute Noncancer Pain: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.

出版信息

JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Jul 29;3(7):e222263. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2263. eCollection 2022 Jul.

DOI:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2263
PMID:35983579
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9338412/
Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Prescription opioids can treat acute pain in primary care but have potential for unsafe use and progression to prolonged opioid prescribing.

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinician-facing interventions to prevent unsafe opioid prescribing in opioid-naive primary care patients with acute noncancer pain.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a multisite, cluster-randomized, 2 × 2 factorial, clinical trial in 3 health care systems that comprised 48 primary care practices and 525 participating clinicians from September 2018 through January 2021. Patient participants were opioid-naive outpatients, 18 years or older, who presented for a qualifying clinic visit with acute noncancer musculoskeletal pain or nonmigraine headache.

INTERVENTIONS

Practices randomized to: (1) control; (2) opioid justification; (3) monthly clinician comparison emails; or (4) opioid justification and clinician comparison. All groups received opioid prescribing guidelines via the electronic health record at the time of a new opioid prescription.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were receipt of an initial opioid prescription at the qualifying clinic visit. Other outcomes were opioid prescribing for more than 3 months and a concurrent opioid/benzodiazepine prescription over 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 22 616 enrolled patient participants (9740 women [43.1%]; 64 American Indian/Alaska Native [0.3%]; 590 Asian [2.6%], 1120 Black/African American [5.0%], 1777 Hispanic [7.9%], 225 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander [1.0%], and 18 981 White [83.9%] individuals), the initial opioid prescribing rates at the qualifying clinic visit were 3.1% in the total sample, 4.2% in control, 3.6% in opioid justification, 2.6% in clinician comparison, and 1.9% in opioid justification and clinician comparison. Compared with control, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a new opioid prescription was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.46-1.18;  = .20) for opioid justification and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.38-0.96;  = .03) for clinician comparison. Compared with control, clinician comparison was associated with decreased odds of opioid therapy of more than 3 months (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91;  = .001) and concurrent opioid/benzodiazepine prescription (aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00;  = .04), whereas opioid justification did not have a significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, comparison emails decreased the proportion of opioid-naive patients with acute noncancer pain who received an opioid prescription, progressed to treatment with long-term opioid therapy, or were exposed to concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine therapy. Health care systems can consider adding clinician-targeted nudges to other initiatives as an efficient, scalable approach to further decrease potentially unsafe opioid prescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03537573.

摘要

重要性

处方类阿片药物可用于治疗初级保健中的急性疼痛,但存在不安全使用和延长阿片类药物处方的潜在风险。

目的

比较预防初级保健中无阿片类药物使用史的急性非癌性疼痛患者不安全使用阿片类药物的临床医生干预措施。

设计、设置和参与者:我们在 3 个医疗系统中进行了一项多地点、集群随机、2×2 析因临床试验,该试验包括 48 个初级保健实践和 525 名参与的临床医生,时间为 2018 年 9 月至 2021 年 1 月。患者参与者为无阿片类药物使用史的门诊患者,年龄在 18 岁及以上,因急性非癌性肌肉骨骼疼痛或非偏头痛性头痛就诊。

干预措施

实践随机分为:(1)对照组;(2)阿片类药物合理性;(3)每月临床医生比较电子邮件;或(4)阿片类药物合理性和临床医生比较。所有组在新的阿片类药物处方时都通过电子健康记录收到阿片类药物处方指南。

主要结果和措施

主要结局指标是在合格诊所就诊时获得初始阿片类药物处方。其他结局指标为超过 3 个月的阿片类药物处方和 12 个月随访期间同时使用阿片类药物/苯二氮䓬类药物的处方。

结果

在 22616 名入组的患者参与者中(9740 名女性[43.1%];64 名美国印第安人/阿拉斯加原住民[0.3%];590 名亚洲人[2.6%],1120 名黑人/非裔美国人[5.0%],1777 名西班牙裔[7.9%],225 名夏威夷原住民/太平洋岛民[1.0%]和 18981 名白人[83.9%]),合格诊所就诊时的初始阿片类药物处方率在总样本中为 3.1%,在对照组中为 4.2%,在阿片类药物合理性组中为 3.6%,在临床医生比较组中为 2.6%,在阿片类药物合理性和临床医生比较组中为 1.9%。与对照组相比,新阿片类药物处方的调整后优势比(aOR)为 0.74(95%CI,0.46-1.18; = .20),阿片类药物合理性为 0.60(95%CI,0.38-0.96; = .03)。与对照组相比,临床医生比较与减少 3 个月以上阿片类药物治疗的可能性(aOR,0.79;95%CI,0.69-0.91; = .001)和同时使用阿片类药物/苯二氮䓬类药物的可能性(aOR,0.85;95%CI,0.72-1.00; = .04)相关,而阿片类药物合理性没有显著影响。

结论和相关性

在这项聚类随机临床试验中,比较电子邮件减少了急性非癌性疼痛且无阿片类药物使用史的患者接受阿片类药物处方、进展为长期阿片类药物治疗或同时使用阿片类药物和苯二氮䓬类药物治疗的比例。医疗保健系统可以考虑将临床医生针对性的提示添加到其他计划中,作为进一步减少潜在不安全阿片类药物处方的有效、可扩展的方法。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT03537573。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0e86/9338412/79ab83622f81/jamahealthforum-e222263-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0e86/9338412/0459a9abcf66/jamahealthforum-e222263-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0e86/9338412/79ab83622f81/jamahealthforum-e222263-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0e86/9338412/0459a9abcf66/jamahealthforum-e222263-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0e86/9338412/79ab83622f81/jamahealthforum-e222263-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Effect of Different Interventions to Help Primary Care Clinicians Avoid Unsafe Opioid Prescribing in Opioid-Naive Patients With Acute Noncancer Pain: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.不同干预措施对帮助初级保健临床医生避免阿片类药物初治急性非癌痛患者处方不安全阿片类药物的效果:一项群组随机临床试验。
JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Jul 29;3(7):e222263. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2263. eCollection 2022 Jul.
2
Strategies to Deimplement Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.在初级保健中停用阿片类药物处方的策略:一项集群随机临床试验。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2438325. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.38325.
3
Patient Preference and Risk Assessment in Opioid Prescribing Disparities: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.患者偏好和风险评估在阿片类药物处方差异中的作用:一项随机临床试验的二次分析。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jul 1;4(7):e2118801. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.18801.
4
Effect of Changing Electronic Health Record Opioid Analgesic Dispense Quantity Defaults on the Quantity Prescribed: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.改变电子健康记录阿片类镇痛药配给数量默认值对处方数量的影响:一项集群随机临床试验。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 1;4(4):e217481. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7481.
5
Improving Adherence to Long-term Opioid Therapy Guidelines to Reduce Opioid Misuse in Primary Care: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.遵循长期阿片类药物治疗指南以减少初级保健中阿片类药物滥用情况的改善:一项整群随机临床试验。
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Sep 1;177(9):1265-1272. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2468.
6
Accessibility to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder After Interventions to Improve Prescribing Among Nonaddiction Clinics in the US Veterans Health Care System.改善美国退伍军人医疗保健系统中非成瘾诊所处方行为的干预措施后,阿片类药物使用障碍药物的可及性。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2137238. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.37238.
7
Effect of Integrating Access to a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Within the Electronic Health Record on the Frequency of Queries by Primary Care Clinicians: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.电子病历中整合处方药物监测项目对初级保健临床医生查询频率的影响:一项整群随机临床试验。
JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Jun 5;3(6):e221852. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.1852. eCollection 2022 Jun.
8
Effect of Behavioral Interventions on Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing Among Primary Care Practices: A Randomized Clinical Trial.行为干预对基层医疗实践中不适当抗生素处方的影响:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA. 2016 Feb 9;315(6):562-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0275.
9
Patterns of Opioid and Benzodiazepine Use in Opioid-Naïve Patients with Newly Diagnosed Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain.初诊为下背部和下肢疼痛的阿片类药物未使用患者的阿片类药物和苯二氮䓬类药物使用模式
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Jan;35(1):291-297. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05549-8. Epub 2019 Nov 12.
10
Effect of Nudges to Clinicians, Patients, or Both to Increase Statin Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.对临床医生、患者或两者同时采取推动措施以增加他汀类药物处方:一项集群随机临床试验。
JAMA Cardiol. 2023 Jan 1;8(1):23-30. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.4373.

引用本文的文献

1
A qualitative analysis on the implementation of a nudge intervention to reduce post-surgical opioid prescribing.一项关于实施助推干预以减少术后阿片类药物处方的定性分析。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Apr 8;25(1):512. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12651-7.
2
Electronic Health Record Nudges and Health Care Quality and Outcomes in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.电子健康记录提示对初级保健医疗质量和结果的影响:系统评价。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Sep 3;7(9):e2432760. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.32760.
3
Impact of Provider-Facing Interventions to Reduce Opioid Use on Pain Related Outcomes in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

本文引用的文献

1
The Effect Of Clinician Feedback Interventions On Opioid Prescribing.临床医生反馈干预对阿片类药物处方的影响。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2022 Mar;41(3):424-433. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01407.
2
Responding to the opioid crisis in North America and beyond: recommendations of the Stanford-Lancet Commission.应对北美及其他地区的阿片类药物危机:斯坦福-柳叶刀委员会的建议
Lancet. 2022 Feb 5;399(10324):555-604. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02252-2. Epub 2022 Feb 2.
3
Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts.临床医生主导的医疗保健情境下的助推器的系统评价。
面向提供者的减少阿片类药物使用干预措施对初级保健中疼痛相关结局的影响:一项整群随机试验。
Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2024 Apr 22;11:23333928241240957. doi: 10.1177/23333928241240957. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.
4
Peer Comparison or Guideline-Based Feedback and Postsurgery Opioid Prescriptions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.同伴比较或基于指南的反馈与术后阿片类药物处方:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Health Forum. 2024 Mar 1;5(3):e240077. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.0077.
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 12;11(7):e048801. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048801.
4
The protocol of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety Trial 1 (AESOPS-1): Electronic health record nudges.经济学与社会心理学在提高阿片类药物处方安全试验 1(AESOPS-1)中的应用方案:电子健康记录提示。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2021 Apr;103:106329. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2021.106329. Epub 2021 Feb 24.
5
Peer Comparisons to Increase Responsible Opioid Prescribing Among Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.通过同行比较提高口腔颌面外科医生合理开具阿片类药物的水平。
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 May;79(5):955-957. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.12.013. Epub 2020 Dec 16.
6
Assessing The Effectiveness Of Peer Comparisons As A Way To Improve Health Care Quality.评估同行比较作为提高医疗质量方式的有效性。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 May;39(5):852-861. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01061.
7
Effect of an Electronic Health Record "Nudge" on Opioid Prescribing and Electronic Health Record Keystrokes in Ambulatory Care.电子健康记录“提示”对门诊护理中阿片类药物处方和电子健康记录按键操作的影响。
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Feb;36(2):430-437. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06276-1. Epub 2020 Oct 26.
8
The effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed interventions on physician behavioral change: A systematic literature review.行为经济学干预措施对医生行为改变的有效性:系统文献回顾。
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 4;15(6):e0234149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234149. eCollection 2020.
9
The opioid crisis and nudge theory.阿片类药物危机与助推理论。
Can Urol Assoc J. 2020 Apr;14(4):139-140. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6054. Epub 2019 Nov 5.
10
Initial Opioid Prescriptions among U.S. Patients, 2012-2017. Reply.2012 - 2017年美国患者的初始阿片类药物处方。回复。
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 27;380(26):2588. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1905100.