Attitudes Toward Opioids and Risk of Misuse/Abuse in Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain Receiving Long-term Opioid Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the attitudes of patients toward long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) and the potential risk of misuse/abuse in patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). Design: Prospective, descriptive epidemiological study. Setting: Multidisciplinary tertiary care pain center within the Montreal University Health Center. Subjects: Patients who had had at least one visit at least one year prior to the invitation. Methods: We used four questionnaires: demographic questionnaire, the Drug Attitude Inventory Modified (DAI-M), the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT), and the Screening Tool for Addiction Risk (STAR). All questionnaires were administered in their validated French version. Results: Three hundred seventy patients completed questionnaires. The response rate was 79.26%. Of those who responded, 61.62% women and 38.38% men, the mean age was 57 years. The patients had been treated with LtOT for an average of 6.31 years, and the median dose per day in morphine equivalents was 48.21 mg. The DAI-M showed that 32.16% had a positive attitude toward opioids, 39.73% had a negative attitude, and 22.16% had a neutral attitude. The ORT questionnaire demonstrated that 86.2% of the patients were at low risk of abuse/misuse, 13.2% were at moderate risk, and only 0.54% were at high risk. The STAR questionnaire showed that 4.2% had a low risk of abuse/misuse. Conclusions: Despite public opinion, patients treated with LtOT for CNCP and followed in a tertiary care pain center are at low risk for opioid misuse/abuse. We need to refine the way of prescribing opioids, should be selective with our patients, and should relive their pain adequately.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".