Examining Treatment Decision-Making Among Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis: Insights From a Conjoint Analysis Survey

OBJECTIVE: The number of therapies for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is increasing. Thus, it has become more challenging for patients and physicians to navigate the risk-benefit profiles of the various treatment options. In this study, we used conjoint analysis-a form of trade-off analysis that elucidates how people make complex decisions by balancing competing factors-to examine patient decision-making surrounding medication options for axSpA. METHODS: We conducted an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis survey for patients with axSpA to assess the relative importance of medication attributes (eg, chance of symptom improvement, risk of side effects, route of administration, etc) in their decision-making. We also performed logistic regression to explore whether patient demographics and disease characteristics predicted decision-making. RESULTS: Overall, 397 patients with axSpA completed the conjoint analysis survey. Patients prioritized medication efficacy (importance score 26.8%), cost (26.3%), and route of administration (13.9%) as most important in their decision-making. These were followed by risk of lymphoma (9.5%), dosing frequency (7.2%), risk of serious infection (6.0%), tolerability of side effects (5.3%), and clinic visit and laboratory test frequency (4.8%). In regression analyses, there were few significant associations between patients\u27 treatment preferences and sociodemographic and axSpA characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment decision-making in axSpA is highly individualized, and demographics and baseline disease characteristics are poor predictors of individual preferences. This calls for the development of online shared decision-making tools for patients and providers, with the goal of selecting a treatment that is consistent with patients\u27 preferences

Patient and provider differences in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients using opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain often experience side effects that may affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). These side effects include opioid-induced constipation (OIC), sedation, dizziness, and nausea. OIC can significantly affect HRQOL for patients on a daily basis. However, it is not well understood whether patients and clinicians view OIC management similarly. AIMS: In this study, we sought to elucidate the decision-making process around managing OIC by assessing patient and provider treatment preferences, experiences, and communication regarding this condition. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 clinicians, and held three focus groups with patients who were currently using or had used opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We then analyzed transcribed interviews using descriptive qualitative methods based on grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Clinicians recognized OIC as a concern but prioritized pain management over constipation. They focused on medication-based treatments for OIC, but also recommended lifestyle changes (e.g., diet) and reducing opioids to relieve symptoms. Patients reported using over-the-counter treatments, but the majority focused on diet-related constipation management. Patients reported not receiving adequate information from clinicians about OIC and relevant treatments. Cost of treatment was a major concern for both patients and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing experiences with and preferences for OIC treatment, including cost, ease of access, and side effects, could improve patient-provider communication and HRQOL. Quality improvement efforts can target uncovered misalignments between patients and clinicians to improve communication about opioid medication adverse effects and relevant treatment options, which may help improve quality of life for patients with chronic pain

Patient and provider differences in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND:Patients using opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain often experience side effects that may affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). These side effects include opioid-induced constipation (OIC), sedation, dizziness, and nausea. OIC can significantly affect HRQOL for patients on a daily basis. However, it is not well understood whether patients and clinicians view OIC management similarly. AIMS:In this study, we sought to elucidate the decision-making process around managing OIC by assessing patient and provider treatment preferences, experiences, and communication regarding this condition. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 clinicians, and held three focus groups with patients who were currently using or had used opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We then analyzed transcribed interviews using descriptive qualitative methods based on grounded theory methodology. RESULTS:Clinicians recognized OIC as a concern but prioritized pain management over constipation. They focused on medication-based treatments for OIC, but also recommended lifestyle changes (e.g., diet) and reducing opioids to relieve symptoms. Patients reported using over-the-counter treatments, but the majority focused on diet-related constipation management. Patients reported not receiving adequate information from clinicians about OIC and relevant treatments. Cost of treatment was a major concern for both patients and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS:Assessing experiences with and preferences for OIC treatment, including cost, ease of access, and side effects, could improve patient-provider communication and HRQOL. Quality improvement efforts can target uncovered misalignments between patients and clinicians to improve communication about opioid medication adverse effects and relevant treatment options, which may help improve quality of life for patients with chronic pain

Understanding Clinicians’ Decisions to Assume Prescriptions for Inherited Patients on Long-term Opioid Therapy: A Qualitative Study

ObjectiveGiven the changing political and social climate around opioids, we examined how clinicians in the outpatient setting made decisions about managing opioid prescriptions for new patients already on long-term opioid therapy.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 32 clinicians in Southern California who prescribed opioid medications in the outpatient setting for chronic pain. The study design, interview guides, and coding for this qualitative study were guided by constructivist grounded theory methodology.ResultsWe identified three approaches to assuming a new patient's opioid prescriptions. Staunch Opposers, mostly clinicians with specialized training in pain medicine, were averse to continuing opioid prescriptions for new patients and often screened outpatients seeking opioids. Cautious and Conflicted Prescribers were wary about prescribing opioids but were willing to refill prescriptions if they perceived the patient as trustworthy and the medication fell within their comfort zone. Clinicians in the first two groups felt resentful about other clinicians "dumping" patients on opioids on them. Rapport Builders, mostly primary care physicians, were the most willing to assume opioid prescriptions and were strategic in their approach to transitioning patients to safer doses.ConclusionsClinicians with the most training in pain management were the least willing to assume responsibility for opioid prescriptions for patients already on long-term opioid therapy. In contrast, primary care clinicians were the most willing to assume this responsibility. However, primary care clinicians face barriers to providing high-quality care for patients with complex pain conditions, such as short visit times and less specialized training

How Do Clinicians of Different Specialties Perceive and Use Opioid Risk Mitigation Strategies? A Qualitative Study

BackgroundIn response to the opioid crisis, states and health systems are encouraging clinicians to use risk mitigation strategies aimed at assessing a patient's risk for opioid misuse or abuse: opioid agreements, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), and urine drug tests (UDT). Objective: The objective of this qualitative study was to understand how clinicians perceived and used risk mitigation strategies for opioid abuse/misuse and identify barriers to implementation. Methods: We interviewed clinicians who prescribe opioid medications in the outpatient setting from 2016-2018 and analyzed the data using Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology. Results: We interviewed 21 primary care clinicians and 12 specialists. Nearly all clinicians reported using the PDMP. Some clinicians (adopters) found the opioid agreement and UDTs to be valuable, but most (non-adopters) did not. Adopters found the agreements and UDTs helpful in treating patients equitably, setting limits, and having objective evidence of misuse; protocols and workflows facilitated the use of the strategies. Non-adopters perceived the strategies as awkward, disruptive to the clinician-patient relationship, and introducing a power differential; they also cited lack of time and resources as barriers to use. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that clinicians in certain settings have found effective ways to implement and use the PDMP, opioid agreements, and UDT but that other clinicians are less comfortable with their use. Administrators and policymakers should ensure that the strategies are designed in a way that strengthens the clinician-patient relationship while maximizing safety for patients and that clinicians are adequately trained and supported when introducing the strategies