Knowledge and implementation of current opioid guidelines among healthcare providers in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore self-perceived knowledge and implementation of current opioid guidelines among healthcare providers, and to assess the effect of an opioid-related educational intervention.Design: Pre-post.Setting: Academic.Participants: Sixty-nine participants completed the pre-intervention survey, 45 percent of them also completed a post-survey.Intervention: A short presentation on current opioid guidelines incorporated in a larger accredited continuing professional development (CPD) event.Outcomes: The 5-point Likert scale to express their level of agreement with seven statements was used to estimate their knowledge and implementation of current opioids guideline, along with their self-perceived abilities and level of comfort in prescribing opioids (Moore's conceptual framework).Results: Fifty percent of the participants were familiar with current opioid prescribing protocols and 46 percent were implementing them, 62 percent stated that were able to identify drug seeking behaviors in patients, 82 percent knew patients’ risk factors and 78 percent evaluated them before prescribing opioids, 90 percent indicated that they prescribed non-opioid alternatives, and 35 percent expressed that they feel comfortable prescribing opioids. Self-reported levels of familiarity with the current opioid prescribing protocols (p < 0.001) and knowledge of patients’ risk factors for prescribing opioids (p = 0.012) increased after the intervention. Improvements in their ability to identify drug seeking behavior in patients (p = 0.033), and in their comfort prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer patients (p = 0.015) were also reported.Conclusions: Healthcare providers’ knowledge and implementation of current opioids guidelines need to be strengthened. A single presentation on the opioid crisis and guidelines incorporated within a larger CPD event showed significant gains in self-reported knowledge and skills among healthcare providers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".