Decoding behaviour change techniques in opioid deprescribing strategies following major surgery: a systematic review of interventions to reduce postoperative opioid use.

Healthcare quality improvement Patient safety Surgery

Journal

BMJ quality & safety
ISSN: 2044-5423
Titre abrégé: BMJ Qual Saf
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101546984

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 23 02 2024
accepted: 11 07 2024
medline: 30 7 2024
pubmed: 30 7 2024
entrez: 29 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

METHODS: A structured search strategy encompassing databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library was implemented from inception to October 2023. Included studies focused on interventions targeting opioid reduction in adults following major surgeries. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool V.2 (RoB 2) and non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tools, and Cohen's 22 studies, comprising 7 clinical trials and 15 cohort studies, were included, with varying risks of bias. Educational (n=12), guideline-focused (n=3), multifaceted (n=5) and pharmacist-led (n=2) interventions demonstrated diverse effect sizes (small-medium n=10, large n=12). A total of 23 unique BCTs were identified across studies, occurring 140 times. No significant association was observed between the number of BCTs and effect size, and interventions with large effect sizes predominantly targeted healthcare professionals. Key BCTs in interventions with the largest effect sizes included behaviour instructions, behaviour substitution, goal setting (outcome), social support (practical), social support (unspecified), pharmacological support, prompts/cues, feedback on behaviour, environmental modification, graded tasks, outcome goal review, health consequences information, action planning, social comparison, credible source, outcome feedback and social reward. Understanding the dominant BCTs in highly effective interventions provides valuable insights for future opioid tapering strategy implementations. Further research and validation are necessary to establish associations between BCTs and effectiveness, considering additional influencing factors. CRD42022290060.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
METHODS: A structured search strategy encompassing databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library was implemented from inception to October 2023. Included studies focused on interventions targeting opioid reduction in adults following major surgeries. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool V.2 (RoB 2) and non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tools, and Cohen's
RESULTS RESULTS
22 studies, comprising 7 clinical trials and 15 cohort studies, were included, with varying risks of bias. Educational (n=12), guideline-focused (n=3), multifaceted (n=5) and pharmacist-led (n=2) interventions demonstrated diverse effect sizes (small-medium n=10, large n=12). A total of 23 unique BCTs were identified across studies, occurring 140 times. No significant association was observed between the number of BCTs and effect size, and interventions with large effect sizes predominantly targeted healthcare professionals. Key BCTs in interventions with the largest effect sizes included behaviour instructions, behaviour substitution, goal setting (outcome), social support (practical), social support (unspecified), pharmacological support, prompts/cues, feedback on behaviour, environmental modification, graded tasks, outcome goal review, health consequences information, action planning, social comparison, credible source, outcome feedback and social reward.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Understanding the dominant BCTs in highly effective interventions provides valuable insights for future opioid tapering strategy implementations. Further research and validation are necessary to establish associations between BCTs and effectiveness, considering additional influencing factors.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER UNASSIGNED
CRD42022290060.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39074984
pii: bmjqs-2024-017265
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017265
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Neetu Bansal (N)

Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health,Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Oxford Road, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK neetu.bansal@manchester.ac.uk.

Christopher J Armitage (CJ)

NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Rhiannon E Hawkes (RE)

Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Sarah Tinsley (S)

Pharmacy Department, Royal Stoke University Hospitals, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.

Li-Chia Chen (LC)

Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Darren M Ashcroft (DM)

Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Classifications MeSH