Patient Perspectives on Improving Patient-Provider Relationships and Provider Communication During Opioid Tapering

Patient Perspectives on Mental Health and Pain Management Support Needed Versus Received During Opioid Deprescribing

Prescription opioid tapering has increased significantly over the last decade. Evidence suggests that tapering too quickly or without appropriate support may unintentionally harm patients. The aim of this analysis was to understand patients' experiences with opioid tapering, including support received or not received for pain control or mental health. Patients with evidence of opioid tapering from 6 health care systems participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews; family members of suicide decedents with evidence of opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Results showed that 24% of the participants felt their clinicians checked in with them about their taper experiences while 41% reported their clinicians did not. A majority (68%) of individuals who experienced suicide behavior during tapering reported that clinicians did check in about mood and mental health changes specifically; however, 27% of that group reported no such check-in. More individuals reported negative experiences (than positive) with pain management clinics-where patients are often referred for tapering and pain management support. Patients reporting successful tapering experiences named shared decision-making and ability to adjust taper speed or pause tapering as helpful components of care. Fifty-six percent of patients reported needing more support during tapering, including more empathy and compassion (48%) and an individualized approach to tapering (41%). Patient-centered approaches to tapering include reaching out to monitor how patients are doing, involving patients in decision-making, supporting mental health changes, and allowing for flexibility in the tapering pace. PERSPECTIVE: Patients tapering prescription opioids desire more provider-initiated communication including checking in about pain, setting expectations for withdrawal and mental health-related changes, and providing support for mental health. Patients preferred opportunities to share decisions about taper speed and to have flexibility with pausing the taper as needed.

A qualitative exploration of health care workers' approaches to relational harm reduction in HIV primary care settings

BACKGROUND

Structural harm reduction is an approach to care for people who use drugs (PWUD) that incorporates services and resources (e.g., naloxone, sterile syringes). As conceptualized in our previous research, harm reduction is also "relational," encompassing a patient-provider relationship that is non-judgmental and respectful of patients' autonomy. Little is known about health care workers' (HCW) knowledge or attitudes towards harm reduction beyond structural strategies, whose availability and legality vary across geographical settings. To operationalize how relational harm reduction is both characterized and employed in HIV care settings, where nearly half of patients have a diagnosed substance use disorder, we qualitatively explored HCWs' knowledge of and use of harm reduction via individual in-depth interviews.

METHODS

Our study sample included three HIV clinics, one in Birmingham, Alabama (AL) and two in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (PA). We conducted individual interviews with n = 23 health care workers via Zoom, using a semi-structured interview guide to probe for questions around health care workers' attitudes towards and experiences with providing care to PWH who use drugs and their knowledge of and attitudes towards relational and structural harm reduction. Data was analyzed in Dedoose using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Qualitative analyses revealed two primary themes, Continuum of Relational Harm Reduction in Practice and Limited Harm Reduction Training. Nearly all HCWs (n = 19, 83%) described a patient interaction or expressed a sentiment that corresponded with the principles of relational harm reduction. Yet, over half of participants (n = 14, 61%) used language to describe PWH who use drugs that was stigmatizing or described an interaction that was antithetical to the principles of relational harm reduction. Five HCWs, all from Birmingham, were unaware of the term 'harm reduction.' Few HCWs had any harm reduction training, with most learning about harm reduction from webinars/conferences or on the job.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that relational harm reduction in HIV care settings is practiced along a continuum, and that a range of behaviors exist even within individual HCWs (e.g., used stigmatizing terms such as "addict" but also described patient interactions that reflected patients' autonomy). Given that harm reduction is typically described as a structural approach, a broader definition of harm reduction that is not dependent on policy-dependent resources is needed.

Impact of Opioid Dose Reductions on Patient-Reported Mental Health and Suicide-Related Behavior and Relationship to Patient Choice in Tapering Decisions

Mental health and suicide-related harms resulting from prescription opioid tapering are poorly documented and understood. Six health systems contributed opioid prescribing data from January 2016 to April 2020. Patients 18 to 70 years old with evidence of opioid tapering participated in semi-structured interviews. Individuals who experienced suicide attempts were oversampled. Family members of suicide decedents who had experienced opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. The study participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Patients were 68% female, 80% White, and 15% Hispanic, mean age 58. All family members were female spouses of White, non-Hispanic male decedents. Among the subgroup (n = 60) who experienced a documented suicide attempt, reported experiencing suicidal ideation during tapering, or were family members of suicide decedents, 40% reported that opioid tapering exacerbated previously recognized mental health issues, and 25% reported that tapering triggered new-onset mental health concerns. Among participants with suicide behavior, 47% directly attributed it to opioid tapering. Common precipitants included increased pain, reduced life engagement, sleep problems, withdrawal, relationship dissolution, and negative consequences of opioid substitution with other substances for pain relief. Most respondents reporting suicide behavior felt that the decision to taper was made by the health care system or a clinician (67%) whereas patients not reporting suicide behavior were more likely to report it was their own decision (42%). This study describes patient-reported mental health deterioration or suicide behavior while tapering prescription opioids. Clinicians should screen for, monitor, and treat suicide behavior while assisting patients in tapering opioids. PERSPECTIVE: This work describes changes in patient-reported mental health and suicide behavior while tapering prescription opioids. Recommendations for improving care include mental health and suicide risk screening during and following opioid tapering.

A Qualitative Exploration of Providers' Approaches to Relational Harm Reduction in HIV Primary Care Settings

Background

Structural harm reduction is an approach to care for people who use drugs (PWUD) that incorporates services and resources (e.g., naloxone, sterile syringes). As conceptualized in our previous research, harm reduction is also "relational," encompassing a patient-provider relationship that is non-judgmental and respectful of patients' autonomy. Little is known about providers' knowledge or attitudes towards harm reduction beyond structural strategies, whose availability and legality vary across geographical settings. To operationalize how relational harm reduction is both characterized and employed in HIV care settings, where nearly half of patients have a diagnosed substance use disorder, we qualitatively explored providers' knowledge of and use of harm reduction via individual in-depth interviews.

Methods

Our study sample included three HIV clinics, one in Birmingham, Alabama (AL) and two in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (PA). We conducted individual interviews with n = 23 providers via Zoom, using a semi-structured interview guide to probe for questions around providers' attitudes towards and experiences with providing care to PWH who use drugs and their knowledge of and attitudes towards relational and structural harm reduction. Data was analyzed in Dedoose using thematic analysis.

Results

Qualitative analyses revealed three primary themes, including Relational Harm Reduction in Practice, Not Harm Reduction, No Knowledge of Harm Reduction, and Harm Reduction Training. Nearly all providers (n = 19, 83%) described a patient interaction or expressed a sentiment that corresponded with the principles of relational harm reduction. Yet, over half of participants (n = 14, 61%) used language to describe PWH who use drugs that was stigmatizing or described an interaction that was antithetical to the principles of relational harm reduction. Five providers, all from Birmingham, were unaware of the term 'harm reduction.' Few providers had any harm reduction training.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that relational harm reduction in HIV care settings is practiced along a continuum, and that a range of behaviors exist even within individual providers (e.g., used stigmatizing terms such as "addict" but also described patient interactions that reflected patients' autonomy). Given that harm reduction is typically described as a structural approach, a broader definition of harm reduction that is not dependent on policy-dependent resources is needed.

Disparities in access but not outcomes: Medicaid versus non-Medicaid patients in multidisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation

Purpose: There are known disparities in chronic pain severity, treatment, and opioid-related risks amongst individuals from lower socioeconomic status, including Medicaid beneficiaries, but little is known about whether Medicaid beneficiaries benefit in a similar way from multidisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation. This study investigated differences in clinical outcomes between Medicaid and non-Medicaid beneficiaries who completed a 3-week multidisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation program.Methods: Participants (N = 131) completed a broad range of clinical measures pre- and post-treatment including pain severity, pain interference, depression, anxiety, objective physical functioning, and opioid misuse risk. Patients with Medicaid were compared with non-Medicaid patients in terms of baseline characteristics and rate of change, utilizing two-factor repeated measures analyses of variance.Results: There were baseline characteristic differences, with Medicaid beneficiaries being more likely to be African American, have higher rates of pain, worse physical functioning, and lower rates of opioid use. Despite baseline differences, both groups demonstrated significantly improved outcomes across all measures (p<.001) and no significant difference in rate of improvement.Conclusions: Results suggest that pain rehabilitation is as effective for Medicaid recipients as non-Medicaid recipients. Patients with Medicaid are particularly vulnerable to disparities in treatment, so efforts to expand access to multidisciplinary pain treatments are warranted.

Communication between healthcare providers and communicatively-vulnerable patients with associated health outcomes: A scoping review of knowledge syntheses

OBJECTIVE

Summarize literature on provider-patient communication linked to health outcomes in communicatively-vulnerable patient populations.

METHODS

Scoping review of reviews: systematically searched six databases.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

systematic searches and syntheses of literature; one or more providers and communicatively-vulnerable patients; synchronous in-person communication; intermediate or health outcome linked to communication.

RESULTS

The search yielded 14,615 citations; 47 reviews - with wide range of providers, communication vulnerabilities, communication practices, and health outcomes - met inclusion criteria. Methodology included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches. Quality ranged from very low to high. Six categories of communication practices linked to health outcomes were identified: 1) motivation-based; 2) accommodation of language, culture, gender, sexual identity, and other concordance with the patient; 3) cultural adaptations of interventions; 4) use of interpreters; 5) other provider-patient communication practices; 6) patient communication practices.

CONCLUSION

Communication practices were studied in a wide range of providers, with common themes regarding best practices. A unique finding is the role of the patient's communication practices. The specificity of communication practices studied is heterogeneous, with many reviews providing insufficient details.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Motivation-based practices and culturally- and linguistically-appropriate care have impacts on patient outcomes across a range of settings with different professions and communicatively-vulnerable groups.

Patient Experiences and Clinical Outcomes in a Multidisciplinary Perioperative Transitional Pain Service

Siloed pain management across the perioperative period increases the risk of chronic opioid use and impedes postoperative recovery. Transitional perioperative pain services (TPSs) are innovative care models that coordinate multidisciplinary perioperative pain management to mitigate risks of chronic postoperative pain and opioid use. The objective of this study was to examine patients' experiences with and quality of recovery after participation in a TPS. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 26 patients from The Johns Hopkins Personalized Pain Program (PPP) an average of 33 months after their first PPP visit. A qualitative content analysis of the interview data showed that participants (1) valued pain expectation setting, individualized care, a trusting patient-physician relationship, and shared decision-making; (2) perceived psychiatric treatment of co-occurring depression, anxiety, and maladaptive behaviors as critical to recovery; and (3) successfully sustained opioid tapers and experienced improved functioning after PPP discharge. Areas for improved patient-centered care included increased patient education, specifically about the program, continuity of care with pain specialists while tapering opioids, and addressing the health determinants that impede access to pain care. The positive patient experiences and sustained clinical benefits for high-risk complex surgical patient support further efforts to implement and adapt similar models of perioperative pain care.

STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE): results of a pragmatic randomized trial of pain coping skills training and opioid medication taper guidance for patients on long-term opioid therapy

ABSTRACT

Because long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) for chronic pain has uncertain benefits and dose-dependent harms, safe and effective strategies for opioid tapering are needed. Adapting a promising pilot study intervention, we conducted the STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE) pragmatic clinical trial. Patients in integrated health system on moderate-to-high dose of LtOT for chronic noncancer pain were randomized individually to usual care plus intervention (n = 79) or usual care only (n = 74). The intervention included pain coping skills training and optional support for opioid taper, delivered in 18 telephone sessions over a year, with pharmacologic guidance provided to participants' primary care providers by a pain physician. Coprimary outcomes were daily opioid dose (morphine milligram equivalent [MME]), calculated using pharmacy dispensing data, and the self-reported Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity scale at 12 months (primary time point) and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included opioid misuse, opioid difficulties, opioid craving, pain self-efficacy, and global impression of change, depression, and anxiety. Only 41% randomized to the intervention completed all sessions. We did not observe significant differences between intervention and usual care for MME (adjusted mean difference: -2.3 MME; 95% confidence interval: -10.6, 5.9; P = 0.578), the Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity scale (0.0 [95% confidence interval: -0.5, 0.5], P = 0.985), or most secondary outcomes. The intervention did not lower opioid dose or improve pain or functioning. Other strategies are needed to reduce opioid doses while improving pain and function for patients who have been on LtOT for years with high levels of medical, mental health, and substance use comorbidity.

A meta-ethnography of how children and young people with chronic non-cancer pain and their families experience and understand their condition, pain services, and treatments

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-cancer pain in childhood is widespread, affecting 20% to 35% of children and young people worldwide. For a sizeable number of children, chronic non-cancer pain has considerable negative impacts on their lives and quality of life, and leads to increased use of healthcare services and medication. In many countries, there are few services for managing children's chronic non-cancer pain, with many services being inadequate. Fourteen Cochrane Reviews assessing the effects of pharmacological, psychological, psychosocial, dietary or physical activity interventions for managing children's chronic non-cancer pain identified a lack of high-quality evidence to inform pain management. To design and deliver services and interventions that meet the needs of patients and their families, we need to understand how children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families experience pain, their views of services and treatments for chronic pain, and which outcomes are important to them.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise qualitative studies that examine the experiences and perceptions of children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families regarding chronic non-cancer pain, treatments and services to inform the design and delivery of health and social care services, interventions and future research. 2. To explore whether our review findings help to explain the results of Cochrane Reviews of intervention effects of treatments for children's chronic non-cancer pain. 3. To determine if programme theories and outcomes of interventions match children and their families' views of desired treatments and outcomes. 4. To use our findings to inform the selection and design of patient-reported outcome measures for use in chronic non-cancer pain studies and interventions and care provision to children and their families. The review questions are: 1. How do children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families conceptualise chronic pain? 2. How do children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families live with chronic pain? 3. What do children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families think of how health and social care services respond to and manage their child's chronic pain? 4. What do children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families conceptualise as 'good' chronic pain management and what do they want to achieve from chronic pain management interventions and services?

SEARCH METHODS

Review strategy: we comprehensively searched 12 bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and grey literature sources, and conducted supplementary searches in 2020. We updated the database searches in September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

To identify published and unpublished qualitative research with children aged 3 months to 18 years with chronic non-cancer pain and their families focusing on their perceptions, experiences and views of chronic pain, services and treatments. The final inclusion criteria were agreed with a patient and public involvement group of children and young people with chronic non-cancer pain and their families.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography, a seven-phase, systematic, interpretive, inductive methodology that takes into account the contexts and meanings of the original studies. We assessed the richness of eligible studies and purposively sampled rich studies ensuring they addressed the review questions. Cochrane Qualitative Methods Implementation Group guidance guided sampling. We assessed the methodological limitations of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. We extracted data on study aims, focus, characteristics and conceptual findings from study reports using NVivo software. We compared these study data to determine how the studies related to one another and grouped studies by pain conditions for synthesis. We used meta-ethnography to synthesise each group of studies separately before synthesising them all together. Analysis and interpretation of studies involved children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families and has resulted in theory to inform service design and delivery. Sampling, organising studies for synthesis, and analysis and interpretation involved our patient and public involvement group who contributed throughout the conduct of the review. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each review finding. We used a matrix approach to integrate our findings with existing Cochrane Reviews on treatment effectiveness for children's chronic non-cancer pain.

MAIN RESULTS

We synthesised 43 studies sampled from 170 eligible studies reported in 182 publications. Included studies involved 633 participants. GRADE-CERQual assessments of findings were mostly high (n = 21, 58%) or moderate (n = 12, 33%) confidence with three (8%) low or very low confidence. Poorly managed, moderate or severe chronic non-cancer pain had profound adverse impacts on family dynamics and relationships; family members' emotions, well-being, autonomy and sense of self-identity; parenting strategies; friendships and socialising; children's education and future employment prospects; and parental employment. Most children and parents understood chronic non-cancer pain as having an underlying biological cause and wanted curative treatment. However, families had difficulties seeking and obtaining support from health services to manage their child's pain and its impacts. Children and parents felt that healthcare professionals did not always listen to their experiences and expertise, or believe the child's pain. Some families repeatedly visited health services seeking a diagnosis and cure. Over time, some children and families gave up hope of effective treatment. Outcomes measured within trials and Cochrane Reviews of intervention effects did not include some outcomes of importance to children and families, including impacts of pain on the whole family and absence of pain. Cochrane Reviews have mainly neglected a holistic biopsychosocial approach, which specifies the interrelatedness of biological, psychological and social aspects of illness, when selecting outcome measures and considering how chronic pain management interventions work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We had high or moderate confidence in the evidence contributing to most review findings. Further research, especially into families' experiences of treatments and services, could strengthen the evidence for low or very low confidence findings. Future research should also explore families' experiences in low- to middle-income contexts; of pain treatments including opioid use in children, which remains controversial; and of social care services. We need development and testing of family-centred interventions and services acceptable to families. Future trials of children's chronic non-cancer pain interventions should include family-centred outcomes.

Association Between Opioid Dose Reduction Rates and Overdose Among Patients Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy

BACKGROUND

Tapering long-term opioid therapy is an increasingly common practice, yet rapid opioid dose reductions may increase the risk of overdose. The objective of this study was to compare overdose risk following opioid dose reduction rates of ≤10%, 11% to 20%, 21% to 30%, and >30% per month to stable dosing.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in three health systems in Colorado and Wisconsin. Participants were patients ≥18 years of age prescribed long-term opioid therapy between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2019. Five opioid dosing patterns and drug overdoses (fatal and nonfatal) were identified using electronic health records, pharmacy records, and the National Death Index. Cox proportional hazard regression was conducted on a propensity score-weighted cohort to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for follow-up periods of 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after a dose reduction.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 17 540 patients receiving long-term opioid therapy, 42.7% of patients experienced a dose reduction. Relative to stable dosing, a dose reduction rate of >30% was associated with an increased risk of overdose and the aHR estimates decreased as the follow-up increased; the aHRs for the 1-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups were 5.33 (95% CI, 1.98-14.34), 1.81 (95% CI,1.08-3.03), and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.97-2.27), respectively. The slower tapering rates were not associated with overdose risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving long-term opioid therapy exposed to dose reduction rates of >30% per month had increased overdose risk relative to patients exposed to stable dosing. Results support the use of slow dose reductions to minimize the risk of overdose.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Benefits and Harms of Continuing, Tapering, and Discontinuing Long-Term Opioid Therapy

BACKGROUND

Given efforts to taper patients off long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) because of known harms, it is important to understand if patients and providers align in LTOT treatment goals.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patient and provider perceptions about the harms and benefits of continuing and discontinuing LTOT.

DESIGN

Qualitative study PARTICIPANTS: Patients and providers with experiences with LTOT for pain in two Veterans Health Affairs regions.

APPROACH

We conducted semi-structured interviews and analyzed data using rapid qualitative analysis to describe patient and provider preferences about LTOT continuation and discontinuation and non-opioid pain treatments.

KEY RESULTS

Participants (n=43) included 28/67 patients and 15/17 providers. When discussing continuing LTOT, patients emphasized the benefits outweighed the harms, whereas providers emphasized the harms. Participants agreed on the benefits of continuing LTOT for improved physical functioning. Provider-reported benefits of continuing LTOT included maintaining the status quo for patients without opioid alternatives or who were at risk for illicit drug use. Participants were aligned regarding the harms of negative side-effects (e.g., constipation) from continued LTOT. In contrast, when discussing LTOT tapering and discontinuation, providers underscored how benefits outweighed the harms, citing patients' improved well-being and pain management with tapering or alternatives. Patients did not foresee benefits to potential LTOT tapers or discontinuation and were worried about pain management in the absence of LTOT. When discussing non-opioid pain treatments, participants emphasized that they were adjunctive to opioid therapy rather than a replacement (except for cannabis). Providers described the importance of mental health services to manage pain, which differed from patients who focused on treatments to improve strength and mobility and reduce pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients emphasized the benefits of continuing LTOT for pain management and well-being, which differed from providers' emphasis on the benefits of discontinuing LTOT. Patient and provider differences are important for informing patient-centered care and decisions around continuing, tapering, or discontinuing LTOT.

"I really had somebody in my corner." Patient experiences with a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program

BACKGROUND

Opioid tapering has been identified as an effective strategy to prevent the dangers associated with long-term opioid therapy for patients with chronic pain. However, many patients are resistant to tapering, and conversations about tapering can be challenging for health care providers. Pharmacists can play a role in supporting both providers and patients with the process of opioid tapering.

OBJECTIVE

Qualitatively describe patient experiences with a unique phone-based and pharmacy-led opioid tapering program implemented within an integrated health care system.

METHODS

In-depth telephone interviews with patients who completed the program were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Themes were identified through a constant comparative approach.

RESULTS

We completed 25 interviews; 80% of patients were women (20), with a mean age of 58 years, and 72% (18) had been using opioids for pain management for 10 or more years. Most (60%) described a positive and satisfying experience with the tapering program. Strengths of the program reported by patients included a patient-centered and compassionate taper approach, flexible taper pace, easy access to knowledgeable pharmacist advocates, and resultant improvements in quality of life (e.g., increased energy). Challenges reported included: unhelpful or difficult-to-access nonpharmacological pain management options, negative quality of life impacts (e.g., inability to exercise), and lack of choice in the taper process. At the end of tapering, most patients (72%) described their pain as reduced or manageable rather than worse and expressed willingness to use the program in the future if a need should arise.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program appreciated the program's individualized approach to care and access to pharmacist' expertise. Most interviewed patients successfully reduced their opioid use and recommended that the program should continue as an offered service. To improve the program, patients suggested increased personalization of the taper process and additional support for withdrawal symptoms and nonpharmacological pain management.

[Patient participation through active listening. About the remodeling of an extractions service]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

From listening to patients there arises the possibility of improving both the care and the health infrastructure that users frequent. Our purpose of study was to explore the perception of users about the means and the care received involved in a hospital service through active listening, and to evaluate the satisfaction perceived after the opening of the renovated area.

METHODS

A mixed methodology evaluative investigation was carried out within the context of the Extraction Service of the Costa del Sol Hospital, using qualitative methodology to assess the perception of users, and quantitative methodology through a satisfaction survey to identify the change after remodeling of the area.

RESULTS

Through a qualitative approach, improvements have been identified in terms of the internal and external infrastructure of the center, highlighting the need to personalize spaces depending on the profile of the patient attended. In evaluating the impact after remodeling the area, patients have a higher overall satisfaction both from the healthcare professionals who attend them and from the healthcare center.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the use of a mixed methodology, useful information has been incorporated for a project to improve a hospital infrastructure, and a subsequent evaluation of the positive impact on the satisfaction perceived by users after remodeling.