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