MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405953371 · doi:10.1177/10781552241296516

Pharmacist interventions in optimising opioid medication therapy in pain management for palliative care patients: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4405953371 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rajeev Shrestha, Sunil Shrestha, Ayesha Iqbal, Gizem Gülpīnar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative carePharmacistPsycINFOPsychological interventionMEDLINEOpioidPain medicineSystematic reviewMedication therapy managementPain managementIntensive care medicineFamily medicinePharmacyNursingPhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicineAnesthesiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Opioid therapy is a critical component in managing pain in palliative care, where pharmacists’ specialised expertise is crucial in ensuring quality care for patients. This systematic review aims to document available evidence on pharmacist interventions and their impact on optimising opioid therapy for pain management in palliative care patients. Methods We searched Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), APA PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for relevant articles published from the beginning to 31 st December, 2022. All original studies documenting pharmacists’ intervention and impact in optimising patients receiving opioid therapy for their pain management in palliative care settings were included in this review. Results The database and reference search yielded to a total of 7154 studies. Out of these, only 3 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this study. These studies were conducted in Korea, Canada and United States. Pharmacists were involved in assessing pain, suggesting medication for pain and other symptom management, providing patient education, counselling and recommendation, assessing patient's medication effects such as adverse effects, drug interaction and duplication, and adjusting medication. Similarly, their involvement showed improvements in pain management, opioid usage and management strategies . Conclusion This systematic review highlights the important role of pharmacists in optimising opioid medication therapy for pain management in palliative care patients. Their contributions to palliative patient care improve pain outcomes and overall quality of life. Integrating pharmacists into palliative care teams can enhance pain management practices and provide better care for palliative patients. Further studies accompanying the robust methodologies and broader settings will validate the findings of this review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.190
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology Pharmacy PracticeSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207