CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 471Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid UseSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Validation of the Revised Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain (SOAPP-R)

Open access
Butler, Stephen F., Fernandez, Kathrine, Benoit, Christine, Budman, Simon H., Jamison, Robert N.·2008·The Journal of Pain
DOI 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.11.014PMC PMC2359825
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Unlabelled The original Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP) is a conceptually derived self-report questionnaire designed to predict aberrant medication-related behaviors among chronic pain patients considered for long-term opioid therapy. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an empirically derived version of the SOAPP (SOAPP-R) that addresses some limitations of the original SOAPP. In successive steps, items were reduced from an initial pool of 142 to a 97-item beta version. The beta version was administered to 283 chronic pain patients receiving long-term opioid therapy. Items were evaluated based on data collected at follow-up, including correlation with the Aberrant Drug Behavior Index (ADBI), derived from interview data, physician ratings, and urine toxicology screens. Twenty-four items were retained and comprise the final SOAPP-R. Coefficient alpha was .88, and receiver operating characteristics curve analysis yielded an area under the curve of .81 (P < .001). A cutoff score of 18 showed adequate sensitivity (.81) and specificity (.68). The obtained psychometrics, along with the use of a predictive criterion that goes beyond self-report, suggest that the SOAPP-R is an improvement over the original version in screening risk potential for aberrant medication-related behavior among persons with chronic pain.Perspective There is a need for a screener for abuse risk in patients prescribed opioids for pain. This study presents a revised version of the SOAPP-R that is empirically derived with good reliability and validity but is less susceptible to overt deception than the original SOAPP version 1.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.11.014

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Current Opioid Misuse Measure is a reliable and valid survey for assessing aberrant opioid use behaviors among patients with opioid-treated chronic pain.

    “Prescription opioid misuse risk was measured using the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM), a reliable and valid survey commonly used to assess aberrant opioid use behaviors among patients with opioid-treated chronic pain (Butler et al., 2008)”

    From To be aware, or to accept, that is the question: Differential roles of awareness of automaticity and pain acceptance in opioid misuse (2023) · cites this paper as Butler et al., 2008

    The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies the COMM as a questionnaire for periodically documenting current behavior in patients who have taken opioids for an extended period. The paper validates the SOAPP-R, not the COMM; our copy does not establish that the COMM is reliable, valid, or commonly used. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Self-reported craving can be evaluated by tools that are specific to craving or as a single item within a broader assessment tool.

    “Self-reported craving can be evaluated by tools that are specific to craving or as a single item within a broader assessment tool (summarized in Table 1 ) (63, 72).”

    From Craving in Opioid Use Disorder: From Neurobiology to Clinical Practice (2019) · cites this paper as [72]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Butler, S. F., Fernandez, K., Benoit, C., Budman, S. H., & Jamison, R. N.
Affiliations
  • Inflexxion (United States) (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Butler, Stephen F.
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-04
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
360-372
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jpain.2007.11.014
PMC
PMC2359825
OpenAlex
W1972589489
Cited by
471
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 33
FWCI
20.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA015617, R43DA015617, R44DA015617)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
chronic pain, long-term opioid therapy, opioid abuse risk, self-report questionnaire, urine toxicology, psychometric validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Analgesics, Opioid, Attitude to Health, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Opioid-Related Disorders, Intractable Pain, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review