State Medical Board Policy and Opioid Prescribing: A Controlled Interrupted Time Series

Introduction: In March 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic noncancer pain. In response, in April 2016, the North Carolina Medical Board launched the Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative, an investigative program intended to limit the overprescribing of opioids. This study focuses on the association of the Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative with immediate and sustained changes in opioid prescribing among all patients who received opioid and opioid discontinuation and tapering among patients who received high-dose (>90 milligrams of morphine equivalents), long-term (>90 days) opioid therapy. Methods: Controlled and single interrupted time series analysis of opioid prescribing outcomes before and after the implementation of Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative was conducted using deidentified data from the North Carolina Controlled Substances Reporting System from January 2010 through March 2017. Analysis was conducted in 2019–2020. Results: In an average study month, 513,717 patients, including patients who received 47,842 high-dose, long-term opioid therapy, received 660,912 opioid prescriptions at 1.3 prescriptions per patient. There was a 0.52% absolute decline (95% CI= −0.87, −0.19) in patients receiving opioid prescriptions in the month after Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation. Abrupt discontinuation, rapid tapering, and gradual tapering of opioids among patients who received high-dose, long-term opioid therapy increased by 1% (95% CI= −0.22, 2.23), 2.2% (95% CI=0.91, 3.47), and 1.3% (95% CI=0.96, 1.57), respectively, in the month after Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation. Conclusions: Although Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation was associated with an immediate decline in overall opioid prescribing, it was also associated with an unintended immediate increase in discontinuations and rapid tapering among patients who received high-dose, long-term opioid therapy. Better policy communication and prescriber education regarding opioid tapering best practices may help mitigate unintended consequences of statewide policies

A statewide evaluation of seven strategies to reduce opioid overdose in North Carolina

Background In response to increasing opioid overdoses, US prevention efforts have focused on prescriber education and supply, demand and harm reduction strategies. Limited evidence informs which interventions are effective. We evaluated Project Lazarus, a centralised statewide intervention designed to prevent opioid overdose. Methods Observational intervention study of seven strategies. 74 of 100 North Carolina counties implemented the intervention. Dichotomous variables were constructed for each strategy by county-month. Exposure data were: Process logs, surveys, addiction treatment interviews, prescription drug monitoring data. Outcomes were: Unintentional and undetermined opioid overdose deaths, overdose-related emergency department (ED) visits. Interrupted time-series Poisson regression was used to estimate rates during preintervention (2009-2012) and intervention periods (2013-2014). Adjusted IRR controlled for prescriptions, county health status and time trends. Time-lagged regression models considered delayed impact (0-6 months). Results In adjusted immediate-impact models, provider education was associated with lower overdose mortality (IRR 0.91; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02) but little change in overdose-related ED visits. Policies to limit ED opioid dispensing were associated with lower mortality (IRR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07), but higher ED visits (IRR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12). Expansions of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) were associated with increased mortality (IRR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37) but lower ED visits in time-lagged models. Conclusions Provider education related to pain management and addiction treatment, and ED policies limiting opioid dispensing showed modest immediate reductions in mortality. MAT expansions showed beneficial effects in reducing ED-related overdose visits in time-lagged models, despite an unexpected adverse association with mortality

Intended and unintended consequences: Changes in opioid prescribing practices for postsurgical, acute, and chronic pain indications following two policies in North Carolina, 2012–2018 – Controlled and single-series interrupted time series analyses

Background: The potential misapplication of current opioid prescribing policies remains understudied and may have substantial adverse implications for patient safety. Methods: We used autoregressive integrated moving average models to assess level and trend changes in monthly 1) prescribing rates, 2) days’ supply, and 3) daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of incident opioid prescriptions relative to 1) a state medical board initiative to reduce high-dose and -volume opioid prescribing and 2) legislation to limit initial opioid prescriptions for acute and postsurgical pain. We examined outcomes by pain indication overall and by cancer history, using prescribing patterns for benzodiazepines to control for temporal trends. We used large private health insurance claims data to include North Carolina residents, aged 18–64, insured at any point between January 2012 and August 2018. Results: After the medical board initiative, prescribing patterns for chronic pain patients did not change; conversely, acute and postsurgical pain patients experienced immediate declines in daily MME. Post-legislation prescription rates did not decline for those with acute, postsurgical, and non-cancer pain, but instead declined among cancer patients with chronic pain. Chronic pain patients experienced the largest days’ supply declines post-legislation, instead of acute and postsurgical pain patients. Conclusions: We found mixed evidence on the potential impact of two opioid prescribing policies, with some observed declines in a group not intended to be impacted by the policy. This study provides evidence of the need for clearer opioid prescribing policies to ensure impacts on intended populations and avoid unintended consequences

Diffusion of School-Based Prevention Programs in Two Urban Districts: Adaptations, Rationales, and Suggestions for Change

The diffusion of school-based preventive interventions involves the balancing of high-fidelity implementation of empirically-supported programs with flexibility to permit local stakeholders to target the specific needs of their youth. There has been little systematic research that directly seeks to integrate research- and community-driven approaches to diffusion. The present study provides a primarily qualitative investigation of the initial roll-out of two empirically-supported substance and violence prevention programs in two urban school districts that serve a high proportion of low-income, ethnic minority youth. The predominant ethnic group in most of our study schools was Asian American, followed by smaller numbers of Latinos, African Americans, and European Americans. We examined the adaptations made by experienced health teachers as they implemented the programs, the elicitation of suggested adaptations to the curricula from student and teacher stakeholders, and the evaluation of the consistency of these suggested adaptations with the core components of the programs. Data sources include extensive classroom observations of curricula delivery and interviews with students, teachers, and program developers. All health teachers made adaptations, primarily with respect to instructional format, integration of real-life experiences into the curriculum, and supplementation with additional resources; pedagogical and class management issues were cited as the rationale for these changes. Students and teachers were equally likely to propose adaptations that met with the program developers’ approval with respect to program theory and implementation logistics. Tensions between teaching practice and prevention science—as well as implications for future research and practice in school-based prevention—are considered

Predictors of Engagement and Attendance of a Family-Based Prevention Program for Underage Drinking in Mexico

Underage drinking represents a major global health problem. Given the crisis that underage drinking represents, Tomando Buenas Decisiones, a family-based prevention program, was adapted and piloted in Mexico based on the existing Guiding Good Choices program. Although family-based interventions in the USA are promising for preventing underage drinking, little is known about how adapted versions of these interventions may work in low-middle income countries, such as in Latin America. The present study examined whether baseline individual, familial, and cultural factors predict participants’ engagement and attendance in an adapted program for preventing underage drinking in Zacatecas, Mexico. The study was conducted with a sample of 178 parents who participated in the adapted program and were employed at local private companies. Latent growth curve modeling was used to analyze (a) change in engagement, (b) predictors of engagement, and (c) predictors of attendance. Results indicated that perceived engagement evidenced a significant linear increase throughout the intervention. Participants’ familism values, such as perceived family as referents and family support, at baseline predicted both initial levels of and change in engagement. Perceived familial obligation also predicted change in engagement. Attendance was negatively predicted by male gender, by perceived stress, and by perceived familial obligations among women only. Poor family management, and perceived familial obligations among men, positively predicted attendance. Our findings have important implications for the conceptualization of engagement and attendance in family-based preventive interventions for underage drinking among Hispanics. Researchers interested in implementing interventions in Latin America can use these findings to better comprehend how and for whom adapted family-based preventive interventions work. © 2021, Society for Prevention Research

Reducing narcissistic aggression by buttressing self-esteem: an experimental field study

Narcissistic individuals are prone to become aggressive when their egos are threatened. We report a randomized field experiment that tested whether a social-psychological intervention designed to lessen the impact of ego threat reduces narcissistic aggression. A sample of 405 young adolescents (mean age = 13.9 years) were randomly assigned to complete either a short self-affirmation writing assignment (which allowed them to reflect on their personally important values) or a control writing assignment. We expected that the self-affirmation would temporarily attenuate the ego-protective motivations that normally drive narcissists' aggression. As expected, the self-affirmation writing assignment reduced narcissistic aggression for a period of a school week, that is, for a period up to 400 times the duration of the intervention itself. These results provide the first empirical demonstration that buttressing self-esteem (as opposed to boosting self-esteem) can be effective at reducing aggression in at-risk youth. © 2009 Association for Psychological Science