Exploring Physicians′ Comfort Level with Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To explore the attitudes of family physicians (FPs) toward the use of opioids in the management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) in the Calgary Health Region (CHR), Calgary, Alberta. METHODS: From January to February 2003, random samples of 147 FPs (32 were used to pretest the instrument and were therefore excluded from the findings) and 142 specialists practicing in the CHR were invited to participate in a 20 min survey to explore aspects of CNCP management in the CHR. Physicians' comfort in prescribing opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for CNCP was measured on a four-point ordinal scale. The specialists' subgroup served as a quasi-control group. In addition, a short version of the survey was provided for those physicians who declined to fully partake in the study. This allowed the researchers to compare important characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents. RESULTS: A total of 125 physicians (63 FPs and 62 specialists) participated in the study. The overall response rate was 48.6% and response rates for FPs and specialists were 54.8% and 43.7%, respectively. Response rates for the long version of the survey were 42.6% for FPs (n=49), 31.6% for other specialists (n=45) and 36.6% for both combined. The majority of FPs and specialists (98% and 71.1%, respectively) reported that 'they can handle' nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Tylenol No 3 with Codeine (Janssen-Ortho/McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Canada) (95.9% and 64.4%, respectively), morphine/MS Contin (Purdue Pharma, Canada) (61.2% and 24.4%, respectively) and Percocet (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Canada)/OxyContin (Purdue Pharma, Canada) (61.2% and 33.3%, respectively). Fewer FPs and specialists report that 'they can handle' Dilaudid (Abbott Laboratories, Canada)/Hydromorph Contin (Purdue Pharma, Canada) (36.7% and 13.3%, respectively), fentanyl patch (30.6% and 11.1%, respectively) and methadone (0% and 6.7%, respectively). Male FPs reported a greater degree of comfort than female FPs regarding morphine/MS Contin, Percocet/OxyContin and Dilaudid/ Hydromorph Contin (Mann-Whitney U tested at alpha <or=0.05). No sex differences were detected among specialists. No relationship was detected between comfort and years of practice or number of chronic pain patients in practice. Among specialists, a weak positive relationship was detected between the degree of comfort with methadone (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient=0.35, alpha=0.03) and the significance of pain management in the practice. Except for methodone, the FPs reported a higher confidence with the drugs in question compared with specialists (alpha <or=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: FPs in the CHR need to increase their comfort level toward opioids in general to adequately manage CNCP. Their lack of comfort may reflect a lack of education or fear of regulatory scrutiny.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».