Evidence mapPaperPMID 38607664Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Evaluation of a Pilot Program to Prevent the Misuse of Prescribed Opioids Among Health Care Workers: Repeated Measures Survey Study.

Stephen Hebard, GracieLee Weaver, William B Hansen, Scarlett Ruppert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact, top 95% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen Hebard *Prevention Strategies, Greensboro, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9789-2698
GracieLee Weaver *Department of Public Health Education, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8916-2393
William B Hansen *Prevention Strategies, Greensboro, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0970-8000
Scarlett Ruppert *Department of Public Health Education, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3725-5966
North Carolina Families United · USUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro · US

Funding

NIDA NIH HHS R43 DA050404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOverprescription of opioids has led to increased misuse of opioids, resulting in higher rates of overdose. The workplace can play a vital role in an individual's intentions to misuse prescription opioids with injured workers being prescribed opioids, at a rate 3 times the national average. For example, health care workers are at risk for injuries, opioid dispensing, and diversion. Intervening within a context that may contribute to risks for opioid misuse while targeting individual psychosocial factors may be a useful complement to interventions at policy and prescribing levels.

objectiveThis pilot study assessed the effects of a mobile-friendly opioid misuse intervention prototype tailored for health care workers using the preparation phase of a multiphase optimization strategy design.

methodsA total of 33 health care practitioners participated in the pilot intervention, which included 10 brief web-based lessons aimed at impacting psychosocial measures that underlie opioid misuse. The lesson topics included: addiction beliefs, addiction control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and recommendations, beliefs about patient-provider relationships and communication, control in communicating with providers, beliefs about self-monitoring pain and side effects, control in self-monitoring pain and side effects, diversion and disposal beliefs, diversion and disposal control, and a conclusion lesson. Using a treatment-only design, pretest and posttest surveys were collected. A general linear repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess mean differences from pretest to posttest. Descriptive statistics were used to assess participant feedback about the intervention.

resultsAfter completing the intervention, participants showed significant mean changes with increases in knowledge of opioids (+0.459; P<.001), less favorable attitudes toward opioids (-1.081; P=.001), more positive beliefs about communication with providers (+0.205; P=.01), more positive beliefs about pain management control (+0.969; P<.001), and increased intentions to avoid opioid use (+0.212; P=.03). Of the 33 practitioners who completed the program, most felt positive about the information presented, and almost 70% (23/33) agreed or strongly agreed that other workers in the industry should complete a program like this.

conclusionsWhile attempts to address the opioid crisis have been made through public health policies and prescribing initiatives, opioid misuse continues to rise. Certain industries place workers at greater risk for injury and opioid dispensing, making interventions that target workers in these industries of particular importance. Results from this pilot study show positive impacts on knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about communicating with providers and pain management control, as well as intentions to avoid opioid misuse. However, the dropout rate and small sample size are severe limitations, and the results lack generalizability. Results will be used to inform program revisions and future optimization trials, with the intention of providing insight for future intervention development and evaluation of mobile-friendly eHealth interventions for employees.

Indexed as

health care workersopioid misusepain managementprescription opioidspreventionsubstance abusesubstance useworkers

Identifiers

PMID38607664
PMCPMC11053396
OpenAlexW4392754453

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.