Opioid UseNCT03183882
Peer Comparison Feedback on Opioid Prescribing
A study testing Personal Feedback and Peer Normative Comparison Feedback in people with Opioid Use, run by University of Pittsburgh at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
We aim to determine if descriptive normative feedback of peer prescribing reduces opioid analgesic prescribing by emergency medicine providers Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Opioid Use
- What is being tested?
- Personal Feedback and Peer Normative Comparison Feedback
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 49 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 7 Aug 2017to 28 Sep 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Emergency medicine provider
- Writes 10 or more opioid prescriptions per month (on average)
Who cannot join
- none
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Emergency Department
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15261
About this study
Official title: Effect of Peer Comparison Feedback on Opioid Prescribing by Emergency Medicine Providers
We aim to determine if descriptive normative feedback of peer prescribing reduces opioid analgesic prescribing by emergency medicine providers
Read the detailed description
State-based Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are being implemented to reduce prescription drug abuse and diversion. On August 24, 2016, Pennsylvania initiated its mandated PDMP. In prior research, we found that ED providers reduced opioid prescribing by 17% immediately after PDMP went live. Still, there is variability between providers in the frequency of opioid prescribing even after PDMP initiation. Changing clinician prescribing behavior is difficult, but recent research has shown that using peer comparisons can assist behavior change (Meeker D et al., JAMA, 2016). In this study, we will randomize a convenience sample of ED providers to receive either their opioid prescribing history data with peer comparative data or without peer comparative data. We will examine the effect on immediate perceived norms as well as impact on opioid prescribing in the subsequent 3 months. Results could inform behavioral feedback to alter clinician prescribing behaviors
- Conditions
- Opioid Use
- Being tested
- Personal Feedback, Peer Normative Comparison Feedback
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Personal FeedbackBehavioural
One-time summary report of their individual history of opioid prescribing over the past 14 months
Peer Normative Comparison FeedbackBehavioural
One-time summary report of their individual history of opioid prescribing over the past 14 months WITH comparisons to (a) other providers at their site and (2) other providers at all 15 ED sites with similar prescribing
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Normative Peer Comparison | Experimental | One-time summary report of 14-month individual history of opioid prescribing WITH comparisons to (a) other providers at their site and (2) other providers at 15 ED sites with similar prescribing Receives: Behavioral: Peer Normative Comparison Feedback |
| Control Feedback | Active comparator | One-time summary report of their individual history of opioid prescribing Receives: Behavioral: Personal Feedback |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Normative beliefs
How much, relative to other emergency providers, do they prescribe opioids?
Measured: Pre-post intervention
Number of opioid prescriptions per month
Number of opioid prescriptions written
Measured: 3-months pre-intervention to 3-months post intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Jun 2017
- Study start7 Aug 2017
- Primary completion28 Sep 2017
- Study completion28 Sep 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Opioid UseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of PittsburghThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 49 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Pittsburgh
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Brian Suffoletto, University of Pittsburgh
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03183882
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PRO17040547
- Status last verified
- Nov 2017
- First submitted
- 8 Jun 2017
- Last updated
- 2 Dec 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: No plan to share
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Dec 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effect of Peer Comparison Feedback on Opioid Prescribing by Emergency Medicine Providers
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03183882
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PRO17040547
- Conditions
- Opioid Use
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 49 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of PittsburghUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 7 Aug 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 28 Sep 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 28 Sep 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 12 Jun 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
We aim to determine if descriptive normative feedback of peer prescribing reduces opioid analgesic prescribing by emergency medicine providers
Detailed description
State-based Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are being implemented to reduce prescription drug abuse and diversion. On August 24, 2016, Pennsylvania initiated its mandated PDMP. In prior research, we found that ED providers reduced opioid prescribing by 17% immediately after PDMP went live. Still, there is variability between providers in the frequency of opioid prescribing even after PDMP initiation. Changing clinician prescribing behavior is difficult, but recent research has shown that using peer comparisons can assist behavior change (Meeker D et al., JAMA, 2016). In this study, we will randomize a convenience sample of ED providers to receive either their opioid prescribing history data with peer comparative data or without peer comparative data. We will examine the effect on immediate perceived norms as well as impact on opioid prescribing in the subsequent 3 months. Results could inform behavioral feedback to alter clinician prescribing behaviors
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Normative Peer Comparison | Experimental | Behavioral: Peer Normative Comparison FeedbackOne-time summary report of 14-month individual history of opioid prescribing WITH comparisons to (a) other providers at their site and (2) other providers at 15 ED sites with similar prescribing |
| Control Feedback | Active comparator | Behavioral: Personal FeedbackOne-time summary report of their individual history of opioid prescribing |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Emergency medicine provider
- Writes 10 or more opioid prescriptions per month (on average)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- none
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Personal FeedbackOne-time summary report of their individual history of opioid prescribing over the past 14 months | Behavioural | Control Feedback |
| Peer Normative Comparison FeedbackOne-time summary report of their individual history of opioid prescribing over the past 14 months WITH comparisons to (a) other providers at their site and (2) other providers at all 15 ED sites with similar prescribing | Behavioural | Normative Peer Comparison |
Primary outcome
Normative beliefs
Time frame: Pre-post intervention
How much, relative to other emergency providers, do they prescribe opioids?
Number of opioid prescriptions per month
Time frame: 3-months pre-intervention to 3-months post intervention
Number of opioid prescriptions written
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Dec 2017.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No plan to share
Related trials for Opioid Use
Not yet recruiting
Remote Intervention to Prevent Overdose
Accidental Overdose of Opiate
Active, not recruiting
Healing Opioid Misuse and Pain Through Engagement (HOPE) Trial
Opioid Use Disorder, Chronic Pain
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Development of an Interview-Informed Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) for Opioid Use in the Era of Fentanyl
Substance Use Disorders (SUDs)
Not yet recruiting
Peer-led, Mobile App Supported Linkage to Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Opioid Use Disorder
Active, not recruiting
Pain and Opioids: Integrated Treatment In Veterans
Chronic Pain, Opioid-use Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Personal Feedback and Peer Normative Comparison Feedback in people with Opioid Use, run by University of Pittsburgh at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Dec 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Normative beliefs (time frame: Pre-post intervention). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Dec 2017.