Influence of opioid prescribing standards on drug use among patients with long-term opioid use: a longitudinal cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In mid-2016, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) issued prescribing standards and guidelines relating to opioid drugs. We evaluated the impact of these regulatory standards and guidelines on prescription drug use among patients in the province with long-term opioid use. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study with monthly repeated measures using administrative health data in British Columbia. Patients with long-term prescription opioid use were followed for a 12-month prepolicy period and 10-month postpolicy period, and were compared with a historical control cohort. We excluded patients with a history of long-term care, palliative care or cancer. We estimated changes in use of opioids, high-dose opioids (> 90 mg of morphine equivalents/d), opioids with sedatives/hypnotics, and opioid discontinuation. RESULTS: The study population included 68 113 patients in the policy cohort and 68 429 patients in the historical control cohort. Following the introduction of the standards and guidelines, the average monthly use of opioids declined (adjusted difference -57 mg of morphine equivalents, 95% confidence interval [CI] -74 to -39) and discontinuation of opioids increased (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.32). Among patients prescribed high-dose opioids, switching to lower-dose opioids increased (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.17), but discontinuation did not change significantly (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.59). INTERPRETATION: The CPSBC's regulatory standards and guidelines were associated with modestly reduced opioid use and increased switching from high-dose to lower-dose opioids among patients with long-term use of prescribed opioids. Assessment of the potential impacts on health outcomes will be necessary for understanding the implications of the standards and guidelines.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".