Search

Abstract Objective To understand the physician perspective on the barriers and facilitators of implementing nine different opioid risk mitigation strategies (RMS) when prescribing opioid medications. Methods We created and dispersed a cross-sectional online survey through the Qualtrics© data collection platform among a nationwide sample of physicians licensed to practice medicine in the United States who have prescribed an opioid medication within the past year. The responses were analyzed using a deductive thematic analysis approach based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ensure a holistic approach to identifying the barriers and facilitators for each RMS assessed. In concordance with this method, the themes and codes for the thematic analysis were defined prior to the analysis. The five domains within the CFIR were used as themes and the 39 nested constructs were treated as the codes. Two members of the research team independently coded the transcripts and discussed points of disagreement until consensus was reached. All analyses were conducted in ATLAS.ti© V7. Results The completion rate for this survey was 85.1% with 273 participant responses eligible for analysis. Intercoder reliability was calculated to be 82%. Deductive thematic analysis yielded 2,077 descriptions of factors affecting implementation of the nine RMS. The most salient code across all RMS was Knowledge and Beliefs about the Intervention, which refers to individuals’ attitudes towards and value placed on the intervention. Patient Needs and Resources, a code referring to the extent to which patient needs are known and prioritized by the organization, also emerged as a salient code. The physicians agreed that the patient perspective on the issue is vital to the uptake of each of the RMS. Conclusions This deductive thematic analysis identified key points for actionable intervention across the nine RMS assessed and established the importance of patient concordance with physicians when deciding on a course of treatment.

Abstract Background This study is part of a state-wide effort to promote the safe disposal of prescription medications and mitigate prescription drug misuse. The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a two-component prevention intervention through Community Prevention Organizations (CPOs) in Texas. The first component involved the distribution of in-home disposal products (IHDP) and the second focused on providing education of the risks of prescription drug misuse. Methods This study followed a mixed methods sequential explanatory study design. In the quantitative phase, the extent to which CPOs carried out the intervention was determined by the distribution rate – a proportion representing the number of IHDP distributed to end users from the amount of IHDP the CPO was shipped. This measure was used to organize the CPOs in to one of three performance categories. In the qualitative arm of the study, stratified random sampling was used to select five CPOs from each performance strata to participate in an in-depth, semi-structured interview about their distribution activity. The interview guide and the data analysis were guided by Bowen’s Feasibility Framework. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a content analysis approach by two research team members. All qualitative analyses were conducted in ATLAS.ti© V7. Results There was a total of 47 CPOs contacted and asked to be part of this study. Of them, 44 CPOs participated in the quantitative phase of the study. This phase revealed that all CPOs had existing relationships with organizations throughout the community such as pharmacies and schools that could act as points of distribution. Following the quantitative phase, 15 CPOs were selected for more in-depth interviews about their distribution practices. In the qualitative phase, this finding was reinforced through the theme “partnerships with local institutions and ability to implement the intervention at community events”. Similarly, education promotion efforts were unanimously emphasized as a strategy to increase utilization of IHDP among end users. All CPOs indicated that the intervention was supplemental to their overall goals. Conclusion CPOs have unparalleled access to community events, local institutions, and the general population they serve, thus, they have the potential to be active facilitators in implementing prevention interventions.

Objective: This study was conducted to assess pharmacists’ practices when counseling patients on their prescription medications, and their preferences for training. Methods: Five focus group discussions of community pharmacists (n=45, with seven to eleven participants in each group) were conducted in a major metropolitan city in the southern United States. Participants were recruited via email using a list of community pharmacists provided by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. All focus group discussions were structured using a moderator guide consisting of both discrete and open-ended questions. Qualitative analysis software was used to analyze the data with a thematic analysis approach. Results: The participants in this study had a high self-efficacy regarding their ability to counsel on both new and opioid prescriptions. Many pharmacists experienced the same barriers to counseling and agreed on the components of counseling. However, the themes that emerged showed that the participants exhibited only a partial understanding of the components of counseling. The themes that emerged in the thematic analysis were perceived confidence and discordant counseling practices, inadequate infrastructure, lack of comprehensive counseling, inconsistent use of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), and pharmacists’ desired training/assistance. Conclusions: Community pharmacists are in a unique position to help combat the opioid crisis; however, there has been very little research on the pharmacist-patient interaction in this context. With policy changes, such as the PDMP mandate, going into effect across the country, it is important to capitalize on the potential community pharmacists have in ameliorating the opioid crisis in the United States.