Cited by 25Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentElectronic Health Records SystemsPain Management and Opioid Use

Clinical Decision Support Systems for Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Primary Care: A Scoping Review

Open access
Spithoff, Sheryl, Mathieson, Stephanie, Sullivan, Frank, Guan, Qi, Sud, Abhimanyu, Hum, Susan, O'Brien, Mary Ann·2020·The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) may help clinicians prescribe opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) more appropriately. This scoping review determined the extent and range of the current evidence on CDSSs for opioid prescribing for CNCP in primary care, and whether investigators followed best evidence and current guidance in designing, implementing and evaluating these complex interventions. METHODS: We searched 9 electronic databases and other data sources for studies from January 1, 2008 to October 11, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened the citations. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified for accuracy. INCLUSION CRITERIA: study of a CDSS for opioid prescribing for CNCP in a primary care clinical setting. We reported quantitative results in tables and qualitative results in narrative form. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5068 records, of which 14 studies met our inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in the United States. Six studies examined local (eg, health center) CDSSs and 8 examined prescription drug monitoring program CDSSs. Three CDSSs incorporated evidence-based components. Study aims were heterogeneous and study designs included both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. No studies assessed patient health outcomes. Few studies appeared to be following guidance for evaluating complex interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have rigorously assessed the use of CDSSs for opioid prescribing for CNCP in primary care settings. Going forward, investigators should include evidence-based components into the design of CDSSs and follow guidance for the development and evaluation of complex interventions.

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 · 10.3122/jabfm.2020.04.190199

Cites

97 of 97 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Catwell L, Sheikh A. Evaluating eHealth interven- tions: The need for continuous systemic evalua- tion. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000126. [Internet] Aug 18 [cited 2018 Sep 24]Available from: https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719100/
  2. Sproule BA. Prescription Monitoring programs in canada: best practice and program review [Internet]. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa, ON 2015;[cited 2018 Jun 14]. Available from: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/ CCSA-Prescription-Monitoring-Programs-in- Canada-Report-2015-en.pdf.
  3. Kohlbeck S, Akert B, Pace C, Zosel A. A multistep approach to address clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior around opioid prescribing. Wis Med J 2018;117:38-41.
  4. Patchett D, Grover M, Kresin M, et al. The bene- fits of a standardized approach to opioid prescrib- ing. J Fam Pract 2019;68:E1-E7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spithoff, S., Mathieson, S., Sullivan, F., Guan, Q., Sud, A., Hum, S., & O'Brien, M. A.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Published
2020-07
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
529-540
ISSN
  • 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7118
OpenAlex
W3042247714
Cited by
25
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Psychiatry Alliance
  • University of Toronto
  • North York General Hospital
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1158463)
  • Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
clinical decision support systems, opioid prescribing, chronic non-cancer pain, primary care, prescription drug monitoring programs, complex interventions, intervention evaluation, patient outcomes
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, United States, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Chronic Pain

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