Patient Values and Preferences for Managing Acute Dental Pain Elicited through Online Deliberation

被引:4
作者
Dawson, T. [1 ]
Pahlke, S. [2 ]
Carrasco-Labra, A. [3 ,4 ]
Polk, D. [5 ]
机构
[1] Art Democracy LLC, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[2] Infect Dis Soc Amer, Arlington, VA USA
[3] Univ Penn, Dept Prevent & Restorat Sci, Philadelphia, PA USA
[4] Univ Penn, Ctr Integrat Global Oral Hlth, Sch Dent Med, Philadelphia, PA USA
[5] Univ Pittsburgh, Sch Dent Med, Pittsburgh, PA USA
关键词
adult; analgesics; dentistry; public health; opioid; stakeholder; participation; DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION; PUBLIC DELIBERATION; GUIDELINE; DENTISTS; OUTCOMES; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1177/23800844231174398
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Introduction: Patient values and preferences (PVP) are among multiple sources of information panelists synthesize when developing clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Patient and public involvement (PPI) can be critical for learning PVP; however, the methodology for engaging patients in CPG development is lacking. Deliberative engagement is effective for obtaining public views on complex topics that require people to consider ethics, values, and competing perspectives. Objective: Elicit comprehensive understanding of PVP concerning oral analgesics for managing acute dental pain consecutive to toothache and simple and surgical dental extractions, with consideration of associated outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. Methods: Multistage engagement involving 2 electronic surveys and a 90-min online small group deliberative engagement. Adults who have experienced acute dental pain deliberated about 3 hypothetical scenarios stratified according to expected pain intensity, completed a postdeliberation survey, and validated a PVP statement developed by researchers based on review of qualitative data from deliberations and quantitative data from surveys. Results: Participants affirmed the PVP statement reflected their small group deliberations and their individual views. Most indicated that pain relief is critical to deciding which pain relief medicine they would want regardless of expected pain level. Most also identify as critical concerns about substance abuse or misuse, although many believe it unlikely that they will experience these outcomes over the brief prescription timeframe for acute dental pain. Participants identified agency in decision-making, consultation including "better communication" of options, and treatment actions tailored to life circumstances as key values. Conclusions: Participants preferred nonprescription and nonopioid pain relief options. As expected pain levels increased, more participants expressed willingness to accept opioids, but more also mentioned rescue analgesia as a third outcome critical to decision-making. Online deliberative method provided opportunities for obtaining informed perspectives. Guideline developers and policymakers may find online deliberations useful for eliciting PVP related to health outcomes. Knowledge Transfer Statement: Study results informed the US Food and Drug Administration-funded clinical practice guideline on the management of acute dental pain. Findings may be a resource for clinicians in decision-making conversations with patients regarding expectations for pain relief and positive and negative outcomes of differing pain relief medications. Further research should pursue applicability of online deliberative engagement as a method to elicit patient values and preferences.
引用
收藏
页码:104 / 113
页数:10
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
Braun V., 2006, Qual Res Psychol, V3, P77, DOI DOI 10.1191/1478088706QP063OA
[2]   Guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain [J].
Busse, Jason W. ;
Craigie, Samantha ;
Juurlink, David N. ;
Buckley, D. Norman ;
Wang, Li ;
Couban, Rachel J. ;
Agoritsas, Thomas ;
Akl, Elie A. ;
Carrasco-Labra, Alonso ;
Cooper, Lynn ;
Cull, Chris ;
da Costa, Bruno R. ;
Frank, Joseph W. ;
Grant, Gus ;
Iorio, Alfonso ;
Persaud, Navindra ;
Stern, Sol ;
Tugwell, Peter ;
Vandvik, Per Olav ;
Guyatt, Gordon H. .
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2017, 189 (18) :E659-E666
[3]  
Carman K, 2013, The use of public deliberation in eliciting public input: findings from a literature review
[4]  
Carman K., 2014, Community forum deliberative methods demonstration: evaluating effectiveness and eliciting public views on use of evidence
[5]   Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial [J].
Carman, Kristin L. ;
Mallery, Coretta ;
Maurer, Maureen ;
Wang, Grace ;
Garfinkel, Steve ;
Yang, Manshu ;
Gilmore, Dierdre ;
Windham, Amy ;
Ginsburg, Marjorie ;
Sofaer, Shoshanna ;
Gold, Marthe ;
Pathak-Sen, Ela ;
Davies, Todd ;
Siegel, Joanna ;
Mangrum, Rikki ;
Fernandez, Jessica ;
Richmond, Jennifer ;
Fishkin, James ;
Chao, Alice Siu .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2015, 133 :11-20
[6]   Common Ground for Action Software and Professional Development to Support Online Deliberation in Classrooms [J].
Christelle, Andrea ;
Dillard, Kara N. ;
Lindaman, Kara .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION, 2018, 14 (01) :134-137
[7]   Distribution of Opioid Prescribing and High-Risk Prescribing Among US Dentists in 2019 [J].
Chua, Kao-Ping ;
Waljee, Jennifer F. ;
Gunaseelan, Vidhya ;
Nalliah, Romesh P. ;
Brummett, Chad M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2022, 62 (03) :317-325
[8]  
Clarke V., 2017, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, V12, P297, DOI [DOI 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613, DOI 10.1191/1478088706QP063OA]
[9]   A systematic review of dental-related emergency department among Medicaid beneficiaries [J].
Cothron, Annaliese ;
Diep, Vuong K. ;
Shah, Savyasachi ;
Brow, Avery ;
Thakkar-Samtani, Madhuli ;
Okunseri, Chris ;
Tranby, Eric P. ;
Frantsve-Hawley, Julie .
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH DENTISTRY, 2021, 81 (04) :280-289
[10]  
Daugherty Biddison Elizabeth L, 2014, Ann Am Thorac Soc, V11, P777, DOI 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201310-379OC