Academic detailing interventions for opioid-related outcomes: a scoping review.
Academic detailing interventions for opioid-related outcomes: a scoping review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.7573/dic.2021-7-7
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Pickard AS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kulbokas V;Hanson KA;Smart MH;Mandava MR;Lee TA;Pickard AS
学术细节（AD）是一种量身定制的互动教育外展干预，可以改善患者的预后。深入了解AD干预措施的设计及其有效程度，有助于为未来基于AD的规划提供信息。这一范围审查的目的是表征阿片类药物为重点的AD干预措施，并描述他们的发现。截至2021年7月1日，在PubMed、EMBASE和CINAHL数据库中对阿片类药物的AD干预进行了范围审查。如果研究以英文撰写，包括以阿片类药物为重点的互动式教育干预措施，并且亲自、虚拟或通过电话进行，则有资格纳入研究。四名独立审稿人审阅了题目和摘要。使用标准化表格完成全文出版物的数据提取。在最初确定的6086篇文章中，22篇文章符合纳入标准，并确定了20个独特的干预措施。AD干预要么是一对一的（n=16），要么是在一个小的、互动的小组环境中（n=4）。AD干预措施在设计上各不相同。根据阿片类药物和纳洛酮处方率、提供者知识差距、提供者对指南的依从性和干预可行性来评估有效性。16项（80%）干预导致一项或多项结果的统计学显著改善。一般来说，阿片类药物相关的AD是有效的，方案主要在药剂师和初级保健提供者之间一对一进行16-30分钟。各种指标和结果被用来评估AD干预的成功/有效性，这是未来研究的一个重要考虑因素，因为没有一个指标能够捕捉到基于教育外展的疼痛管理干预的有效性。
Academic detailing (AD) is a tailored, interactive educational outreach intervention that may improve patient outcomes. Insight into the design of AD interventions and the extent to which they are effective can help inform future AD-based programmes. The objective of this scoping review was to characterize opioid-focused AD interventions and describe their findings. A scoping review focused on AD interventions for opioids was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases through July 1, 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if written in English, included interactive opioid-focused educational interventions, and were conducted either in person, virtually or via telephone. Four independent reviewers reviewed titles and abstracts. Data extraction from full-text publications was completed using a standardized form. Of 6086 articles initially identified, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria and 20 unique interventions were identified. The AD intervention was either delivered one-on-one (n=16) or in a small, interactive group setting (n=4). AD interventions varied in design. Effectiveness was evaluated in terms of opioid and naloxone prescribing rates, provider knowledge gaps, provider adherence to guidelines, and intervention feasibility. Sixteen (80%) interventions resulted in statistically significant improvement in one or more outcomes. Generally, opioid-related AD was effective and programmes were primarily conducted one-on-one between pharmacists and primary care providers for 16–30 minutes. A variety of metrics and outcomes were used to assess the success/effectiveness of AD interventions, which is an important consideration in future studies as no single metric captures the effectiveness of an educational outreach-based intervention for pain management.