“I Was a Little Surprised”: Qualitative Insights From Patients Enrolled in a 12-Month Trial Comparing Opioids With Nonopioid Medications for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major public health problem. Although opioid prescribing for chronic pain has increased dramatically since the 1990s, this practice has come under scrutiny because of increases in opioid-related harms and lack of evidence for long-term effectiveness. The Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial was a pragmatic 12-month randomized trial comparing benefits and harms of opioid versus non-opioid medications for chronic musculoskeletal pain. The current qualitative study was designed to better understand trial results by exploring patients' experiences, including perceptions of medications, experiences with the intervention, and whether expectations were met. Thirty-four participants who were purposefully sampled based on treatment group and intervention response participated in semi-structured interviews. The constant comparison method guided analysis. Results revealed that participants often held strong beliefs about opioid medications, which sometimes changed during the trial as they gained experience with medications; participants described a wide variety of experiences with treatment effectiveness, regardless of study group or their response to the intervention; and participants highly valued the personalized pain care model used in SPACE.
SPACE trial results indicated no advantage for opioid over non-opioid medications. Qualitative findings suggest that, for patients in both treatment groups, pre-existing expectations of medications and of anticipated improvement in pain shaped experiences with and responses to medications. In addition, the personalized pain care model was described as contributing to positive outcomes in both groups.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
6
6%
Psychology
5
5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
2
2%
Other
7
6%
Unknown
55
51%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,193,550
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain
#815
of 3,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,328
of 369,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain
#17
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
