Browsing by Author "MacMaster, Frank P"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Association between harm reduction strategies and healthcare utilization in patients on long-term prescribed opioid therapy presenting to acute healthcare settings: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (2019-04-05) Deschamps, Jean; Gilbertson, James; Straube, Sebastian; Dong, Kathryn; MacMaster, Frank P; Korownyk, Christina; Montgomery, Lori; Mahaffey, Ryan; Downar, James; Clarke, Hance; Muscedere, John; Rittenbach, Katherine; Featherstone, Robin; Sebastianski, Meghan; Vandermeer, Ben; Lynam, Deborah; Magnussen, Ryan; Bagshaw, Sean M; Rewa, Oleksa G
    Abstract Introduction Opioids are routinely used to treat a variety of chronic conditions associated with pain. However, they are a class of medications with a significant potential for adverse health effects, with and without misuse. Opioid misuse, as defined as inappropriate use of appropriately prescribed opioids, is becoming more well-recognized publicly but does not have clear treatment options. Opioid misuse has been linked to variety of poor outcomes and its consequences have a significant impact on healthcare resource utilization. The evidence on harm reduction strategies to mitigate adverse events prompting presentation to acute care settings for patients presenting with long-term opioid use is sparse. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to catalog effective harm reduction strategies and identify the most effective ones to reduce avoidable healthcare utilization in patients on long-term opioid therapy who present to acute health care settings with complications attributed to opioid misuse. A search strategy will be developed and executed by an information specialist; electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) and additional sources will be searched. Search themes will include opioids, chronic drug use, and acute healthcare settings. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment, and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. A comprehensive inventory of harm reduction strategies will be developed. Data will be collected on patient-related outcomes associated with each identified harm reduction strategy. When sufficiently homogeneous data on interventions, population, and outcomes is available, it will be pooled for aggregate analysis. Evaluation of the methodological quality of individual studies and of the quality of the body of evidence will be performed. Our primary objective will be to identify harm reduction strategies that have been shown to result in clinically relevant and statistically significant improvements in patient outcomes and/or decreased healthcare utilization. Discussion This study will better characterize harm reduction strategies for patients on long-term prescribed opioids presenting to acute healthcare settings. It will also add new knowledge and generate greater understanding of key knowledge gaps of the long-term prescribed opioid use and its impact on healthcare utilization. Systematic review registration CRD42018088962 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Association between supportive interventions and healthcare utilization and outcomes in patients on long-term prescribed opioid therapy presenting to acute healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (2021-01-29) Deschamps, Jean; Gilbertson, James; Straube, Sebastian; Dong, Kathryn; MacMaster, Frank P; Korownyk, Christina; Montgomery, Lori; Mahaffey, Ryan; Downar, James; Clarke, Hance; Muscedere, John; Rittenbach, Katherine; Featherstone, Robin; Sebastianski, Meghan; Vandermeer, Ben; Lynam, Deborah; Magnussen, Ryan; Bagshaw, Sean M; Rewa, Oleksa G
    Abstract Background Long-term prescription of opioids by healthcare professionals has been linked to poor individual patient outcomes and high resource utilization. Supportive strategies in this population regarding acute healthcare settings may have substantial impact. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary studies. The studies were included according to the following criteria: 1) age 18 and older; 2) long-term prescribed opioid therapy; 3) acute healthcare setting presentation from a complication of opioid therapy; 4) evaluating a supportive strategy; 5) comparing the effectiveness of different interventions; 6) addressing patient or healthcare related outcomes. We performed a qualitative analysis of supportive strategies identified. We pooled patient and system related outcome data for each supportive strategy. Results A total of 5664 studies were screened and 19 studies were included. A total of 9 broad categories of supportive strategies were identified. Meta-analysis was performed for the “supports for patients in pain” supportive strategy on two system-related outcomes using a ratio of means. The number of emergency department (ED) visits were significantly reduced for cohort studies (n = 6, 0.36, 95% CI [0.20–0.62], I2 = 87%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 3, 0.71, 95% CI [0.61–0.82], I2 = 0%). The number of opioid prescriptions at ED discharge was significantly reduced for RCTs (n = 3, 0.34, 95% CI [0.14–0.82], I2 = 78%). Conclusion For patients presenting to acute healthcare settings with complications related to long-term opioid therapy, the intervention with the most robust data is “supports for patients in pain”.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Engaging people with lived experience in the grant review process
    (2019-12-16) Rittenbach, Katherine; Horne, Candice G; O’Riordan, Terence; Bichel, Allison; Mitchell, Nicholas; Fernandez Parra, Adriana M; MacMaster, Frank P
    Abstract People with lived experience are individuals who have first-hand experience of the medical condition(s) being considered. The value of including the viewpoints of people with lived experience in health policy, health care, and health care and systems research has been recognized at many levels, including by funding agencies. However, there is little guidance or established best practices on how to include non-academic reviewers in the grant review process. Here we describe our approach to the inclusion of people with lived experience in every stage of the grant review process. After a budget was created for a specific call, a steering committee was created. This group included researchers, people with lived experience, and health systems administrators. This group developed and issued the call. After receiving proposals, stage one was scientific review by researchers. Grants were ranked by this score and a short list then reviewed by people with lived experience as stage two. Finally, for stage three, the Steering Committee convened and achieved consensus based on information drawn from stages one and two. Our approach to engage people with lived experience in the grant review process was positively reviewed by everyone involved, as it allowed for patient perspectives to be truly integrated. However, it does lengthen the review process. The proposed model offers further practical insight into including people with lived experience in the review process.