Opioids: How to Improve Compliance and Adherence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain has been recognized as a major worldwide health care problem. Today, medical experts and health agencies agree that chronic pain should be treated with the same priority as the disease that caused it, and patients should receive adequate pain relief. To achieve good analgesia, patient adherence to a prescribed pain treatment is of high importance. Patients with chronic pain often do not use their medication as prescribed, but change the frequency of intake. This can result in poor treatment outcomes and may necessitate additional emergency treatment, which increases the overall costs. Factors that influence adherence include knowledge of the disease, realistic treatment expectations, perceived benefit from treatment, side effects, depression, dosing frequency, and attitudes of relatives/significant others toward opioids. Addressing all these factors should ensure a good treatment outcome. Good adherence to pain therapy is associated with improved efficacy in pain relief and quality of life. Opioids have become an integral part of the treatment of moderate to severe chronic noncancer pain. They may cause unpleasant side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Patients should be informed adequately about side effects, which should be treated pro-actively to foster adherence to treatment. Signs of tolerance, hyperalgesia, and drug abuse should be monitored as these may occur in some patients. An individualized treatment algorithm with a clear treatment goal and regular treatment reassessment is key for successful treatment. Long-acting opioids offer sustained pain relief over 24 hours with manageable side effects-they simplify treatment thereby supporting treatment adherence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".