Substance use & misuse · 2018
Perceived Unintended Consequences of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yuanhong Lai Alden, Smith Katherine C, Vernick Jon S, Davis Corey S, Caleb Alexander G, Rutkow Lainie
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Opioid-related injuries and deaths continue to present challenges for public health practitioners. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are a prevalent policy option intended to address problematic opioid pain reliever (OPR) prescribing, but previous research has not thoroughly characterized their unintended consequences.
OBJECTIVES: To examine state actors' perceptions of the unintended consequences of PDMPs.
METHODS: We conducted 37 interviews with PDMP staff, law enforcement officials, and administrative agency employees in Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Ohio from May 2015 to June 2016.
RESULTS: We identified six themes from the interviews. Perceived negative unintended consequences included: access barriers for those with medical needs, heroin use as OPR substitute and related deaths, and need for adequate PDMP security infrastructure and management. Perceived positive unintended consequences were: community formation and problem awareness, proactive population-level OPR monitoring, and increased knowledge about population-level drug diversion. Conclusions/Importance: State actors perceive a range of both negative and positive unintended consequences of PDMPs. Our findings suggest that there may be unintended risks of PDMPs that states should address, but also opportunities to maximize certain benefits.
OBJECTIVES: To examine state actors' perceptions of the unintended consequences of PDMPs.
METHODS: We conducted 37 interviews with PDMP staff, law enforcement officials, and administrative agency employees in Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Ohio from May 2015 to June 2016.
RESULTS: We identified six themes from the interviews. Perceived negative unintended consequences included: access barriers for those with medical needs, heroin use as OPR substitute and related deaths, and need for adequate PDMP security infrastructure and management. Perceived positive unintended consequences were: community formation and problem awareness, proactive population-level OPR monitoring, and increased knowledge about population-level drug diversion. Conclusions/Importance: State actors perceive a range of both negative and positive unintended consequences of PDMPs. Our findings suggest that there may be unintended risks of PDMPs that states should address, but also opportunities to maximize certain benefits.