Acceptability of a proposed practice pharmacist-led review for opioid-treated patients with persistent pain: A qualitative study to inform intervention development

IF 1.3 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY British Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-12-19 DOI:10.1177/20494637231221688
Nicola Cornwall, Charlotte Woodcock, Julie Ashworth, Sarah A Harrisson, L. Dikomitis, Simon White, T. Helliwell, Eleanor Hodgson, R. Knaggs, Tamar Pincus, M. Santer, Christian D Mallen, Clare Jinks
{"title":"Acceptability of a proposed practice pharmacist-led review for opioid-treated patients with persistent pain: A qualitative study to inform intervention development","authors":"Nicola Cornwall, Charlotte Woodcock, Julie Ashworth, Sarah A Harrisson, L. Dikomitis, Simon White, T. Helliwell, Eleanor Hodgson, R. Knaggs, Tamar Pincus, M. Santer, Christian D Mallen, Clare Jinks","doi":"10.1177/20494637231221688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Regular review of patients prescribed opioids for persistent non-cancer pain (PCNP) is recommended but not routinely undertaken. The PROMPPT (Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long-term for persistent Pain led by clinical Pharmacists in primary care Teams) research programme aims to develop and test a pharmacist-led pain review (PROMPPT) to reduce inappropriate opioid use for persistent pain in primary care. This study explored the acceptability of the proposed PROMPPT review to inform early intervention development. Interviews ( n = 15) and an online discussion forum ( n = 31) with patients prescribed opioids for PCNP and interviews with pharmacists ( n = 13), explored acceptability of a proposed PROMPPT review. A prototype PROMPPT review was then tested and refined through 3 iterative cycles of in-practice testing (IPT) ( n = 3 practices, n = 3 practice pharmacists, n = 13 patients). Drawing on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), a framework was generated (including a priori TFA constructs) allowing for deductive and inductive thematic analysis to identify aspects of prospective and experienced acceptability. Patients felt uncertain about practice pharmacists delivering the proposed PROMPPT review leading to development of content for the invitation letter for IPT (introducing the pharmacist and outlining the aim of the review). After IPT, patients felt that pharmacists were suited to the role as they were knowledgeable and qualified. Pharmacists felt that the proposed reviews would be challenging. Although challenges were experienced during delivery of PROMPPT reviews, pharmacists found that they became easier to deliver with time, practise and experience. Recommendations for optimisations after IPT included development of the training to include examples of challenging consultations. Uptake of new healthcare interventions is influenced by perceptions of acceptability. Exploring prospective and experienced acceptability at multiple time points during early intervention development, led to mini-optimisations of the prototype PROMPPT review ahead of a non-randomised feasibility study.","PeriodicalId":46585,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637231221688","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Regular review of patients prescribed opioids for persistent non-cancer pain (PCNP) is recommended but not routinely undertaken. The PROMPPT (Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long-term for persistent Pain led by clinical Pharmacists in primary care Teams) research programme aims to develop and test a pharmacist-led pain review (PROMPPT) to reduce inappropriate opioid use for persistent pain in primary care. This study explored the acceptability of the proposed PROMPPT review to inform early intervention development. Interviews ( n = 15) and an online discussion forum ( n = 31) with patients prescribed opioids for PCNP and interviews with pharmacists ( n = 13), explored acceptability of a proposed PROMPPT review. A prototype PROMPPT review was then tested and refined through 3 iterative cycles of in-practice testing (IPT) ( n = 3 practices, n = 3 practice pharmacists, n = 13 patients). Drawing on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), a framework was generated (including a priori TFA constructs) allowing for deductive and inductive thematic analysis to identify aspects of prospective and experienced acceptability. Patients felt uncertain about practice pharmacists delivering the proposed PROMPPT review leading to development of content for the invitation letter for IPT (introducing the pharmacist and outlining the aim of the review). After IPT, patients felt that pharmacists were suited to the role as they were knowledgeable and qualified. Pharmacists felt that the proposed reviews would be challenging. Although challenges were experienced during delivery of PROMPPT reviews, pharmacists found that they became easier to deliver with time, practise and experience. Recommendations for optimisations after IPT included development of the training to include examples of challenging consultations. Uptake of new healthcare interventions is influenced by perceptions of acceptability. Exploring prospective and experienced acceptability at multiple time points during early intervention development, led to mini-optimisations of the prototype PROMPPT review ahead of a non-randomised feasibility study.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
针对接受阿片类药物治疗的顽固性疼痛患者提出的由执业药师主导的审查的可接受性:为制定干预措施提供信息的定性研究
建议对因持续性非癌性疼痛(PCNP)而处方阿片类药物的患者进行定期复查,但这并非常规做法。PROMPPT(由基层医疗团队中的临床药剂师牵头,对长期服用阿片类药物治疗顽固性疼痛的患者进行主动临床审查)研究项目旨在开发和测试一种由药剂师牵头的疼痛审查方法(PROMPPT),以减少基层医疗中因顽固性疼痛而不适当使用阿片类药物的情况。本研究探讨了建议的 PROMPPT 审查的可接受性,以便为早期干预措施的开发提供信息。通过对开具阿片类药物治疗 PCNP 的患者进行访谈(15 人)和在线讨论论坛(31 人),以及对药剂师进行访谈(13 人),探讨了建议的 PROMPPT 审查的可接受性。然后,通过 3 个迭代周期的实践测试 (IPT),对 PROMPPT 审查原型进行了测试和改进(3 个实践,3 个实践药剂师,13 名患者)。借鉴可接受性理论框架 (TFA),建立了一个框架(包括先验的 TFA 构建),允许进行演绎和归纳专题分析,以确定预期可接受性和经验可接受性的各个方面。患者对执业药剂师提供建议的 PROMPPT 审查感到不确定,这导致了 IPT 邀请函内容的制定(介绍药剂师并概述审查目的)。在 IPT 结束后,患者认为药剂师知识渊博、资质合格,适合担任这一角色。药剂师认为建议的复查具有挑战性。尽管在实施 PROMPPT 审查过程中遇到了挑战,但药剂师发现,随着时间的推移、实践和经验的积累,这些审查变得越来越容易实施。IPT 之后的优化建议包括开展培训,以纳入具有挑战性的咨询实例。对新医疗干预措施的接受程度受可接受性观念的影响。在早期干预开发过程中,在多个时间点探索预期和经验的可接受性,有助于在非随机可行性研究之前对 PROMPPT 审查原型进行小型优化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Pain
British Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: British Journal of Pain is a peer-reviewed quarterly British journal with an international multidisciplinary Editorial Board. The journal publishes original research and reviews on all major aspects of pain and pain management. Reviews reflect the body of evidence of the topic and are suitable for a multidisciplinary readership. Where empirical evidence is lacking, the reviews reflect the generally held opinions of experts in the field. The Journal has broadened its scope and has become a forum for publishing primary research together with brief reports related to pain and pain interventions. Submissions from all over the world have been published and are welcome. Official journal of the British Pain Society.
期刊最新文献
What influences post-operative opioid requirements for tibial fractures? Botulinum toxin: Should we reconsider its place in the treatment of neuropathic pain? Experience of compassion-based practice in mindfulness for health for individuals with persistent pain. Prehabilitation: The underutilised weapon for chronic pain management. The interaction between psychological factors and conditioned pain modulation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1