Personalized risk communication and opioid prescribing in association with nonprescribed opioid use: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Background To determine the impact of personalized risk communication and opioid prescribing on nonprescribed opioid use, we conducted a secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial participants followed prospectively for 90 days after an emergency department (ED) visit for acute back or kidney...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic emergency medicine 2023-08, Vol.30 (8), p.851-858
Hauptverfasser: Nguemeni Tiako, Max Jordan, Shofer, Frances, Dolan, Abby, Goldberg, Erica B., Rhodes, Karin V., Hess, Erik P., Bellamkonda, Venkatesh R., Perrone, Jeanmarie, Cannuscio, Carolyn C., Becker, Lance, Rodgers, Melissa A., Zyla, Michael M., Bell, Jeffrey J., McCollum, Sharon, Engel‐Rebitzer, Eden, Schapira, Marilyn M., Meisel, Zachary F.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background To determine the impact of personalized risk communication and opioid prescribing on nonprescribed opioid use, we conducted a secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial participants followed prospectively for 90 days after an emergency department (ED) visit for acute back or kidney stone pain. Methods A total of 1301 individuals were randomized during an encounter at four academic EDs into a probabilistic risk tool (PRT) arm, a narrative‐enhanced PRT arm, or a general risk information arm (control). In this secondary analysis, both risk tool arms were combined and compared with the control arm. We used logistic regressions to determine associations between receiving personalized risk information, receiving an opioid prescription in the ED, and nonprescribed opioid use in general and by race. Results Complete follow‐up data were available for 851 participants; 23.3% (n = 198) were prescribed opioids (34.2% of White vs. 11.6% of Black participants, p 
ISSN:1069-6563
1553-2712
DOI:10.1111/acem.14710