Effects of opioid addiction risk information on Americans’ agreement with postoperative opioid minimization and perceptions of quality

Abstract

Background

Judicious opioid prescribing and patient counseling, including in the postoperative context, are important efforts to address the U.S. opioid crisis. In discussions with patients and loved ones, there is commonly an emphasis on addiction risk. From a behavioral science standpoint, presenting addiction risk information represents a fear appeal. Clinicians may also seek to build trust and confidence by presenting balanced views of benefits and risks. However, little is known about if and how addiction risk information evokes negative emotions, affects perceptions of quality, and influences perspectives on judicious opioid prescribing.

Methods

We conducted a four-arm, randomized survey of U.S. adults involving a vignette about post-appendectomy pain management for a friend, including the quantity of opioids commonly prescribed. Participants were given either no additional information (control), addiction risk information, addiction plus health risk information, or addiction plus death risk information. We compared evoked affect, agreement with a reduced opioid prescription compared to common practice, and perceptions of quality.

Results

Among 1,546 participants (56% men, mean age 39), 78% agreed with reducing the quantity of opioids prescribed, relative to common practices. Compared to the control, providing addiction risk information did not impact the degree of evoked negative emotions or the likelihood of agreement with reduced opioid prescriptions. Providing opioid risk information increased the likelihood of high surgeon quality ratings.

Conclusions

Among a sample of U.S. adults, presenting addiction risk did not effectively appeal to fear, nor increase agreement with judicious opioid prescribing. Alternative communication strategies may be needed for those purposes.