How Physician Self-Perceptions Affect the Impact of Peer Comparison Feedback on Opioid Prescribing

被引:2
作者
Liao, Joshua M. [1 ,2 ]
Sun, Chuxuan [3 ]
Yan, Xiaowei S. [4 ]
Patel, Mitesh S. [5 ]
Small, Dylan S. [6 ]
Isenberg, William M. [4 ]
Landa, Howard M. [4 ]
Bond, Barbara L. [4 ]
Rareshide, Charles A. L. [3 ]
Volpp, Kevin G. [2 ,3 ]
Delgado, M. Kit [2 ,7 ]
Lei, Victor J. [8 ]
Shen, Zijun [4 ]
Navathe, Amol S. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Sch Med, Dept Med, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Leonard Davis Inst Hlth Econ, Philadelphia, PA USA
[3] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Med Ethics & Hlth Policy, Philadelphia, PA USA
[4] Sutter Hlth, Sacramento, CA USA
[5] Ascension, St Louis, MO USA
[6] Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, Dept Stat & Data Sci, Philadelphia, PA USA
[7] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Emergency Med, Philadelphia, PA USA
[8] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000117
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Peer comparison feedback is a promising strategy for reducing opioid prescribing and opioid-related harms. Such comparisons may be particularly impactful among underestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as high prescribers relative to their peers. But peer comparisons could also unintentionally increase prescribing among overestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as lower prescribers than peers. The objective of this study was to assess if the impact of peer comparisons varied by clinicians' preexisting opioid prescribing self-perceptions. Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial of peer comparison interventions among emergency department and urgent care clinicians was used. Generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess whether the impact of peer comparisons, alone or combined with individual feedback, varied by underestimating or overestimating prescriber status. Underestimating and overestimating prescribers were defined as those who self-reported relative prescribing amounts that were lower and higher, respectively, than actual relative baseline amounts. The primary outcome was pills per opioid prescription. Among 438 clinicians, 54% (n = 236) provided baseline prescribing self-perceptions and were included in this analysis. Overall, 17% (n = 40) were underestimating prescribers whereas 5% (n = 11) were overestimating prescribers. Underestimating prescribers exhibited a differentially greater decrease in pills per prescription compared to nonunderestimating clinicians when receiving peer comparison feedback (1.7 pills, 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (2.8 pills, 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.8 pills). In contrast, there were no differential changes in pills per prescription for overestimating versus nonoverestimating prescribers after receiving peer comparison (1.5 pills, 95% CI, -0.9 to 3.9 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (3.0 pills, 95% CI, -0.3 to 6.2 pills). Peer comparisons were more impactful among clinicians who underestimated their prescribing compared to peers. By correcting inaccurate self-perceptions, peer comparison feedback can be an effective strategy for influencing opioid prescribing.
引用
收藏
页码:129 / 136
页数:8
相关论文
共 10 条
  • [1] Opioid-Prescribing Patterns of Emergency Physicians and Risk of Long-Term Use
    Barnett, Michael L.
    Olenski, Andrew R.
    Jena, Anupam B.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2017, 376 (07) : 663 - 673
  • [2] Target, distance, and valence: Unpacking the effects of normative feedback
    Bogard, Jonathan E.
    Delmas, Magali A.
    Goldstein, Noah J.
    Vezich, I. Stephanie
    [J]. ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 2020, 161 : 61 - 73
  • [3] National Variation in Opioid Prescribing and Risk of Prolonged Use for Opioid-Naive Patients Treated in the Emergency Department for Ankle Sprains
    Delgado, M. Kit
    Huang, Yanlan
    Meisel, Zachary
    Hennessy, Sean
    Yokell, Michael
    Polsky, Daniel
    Perrone, Jeanmarie
    [J]. ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2018, 72 (04) : 389 - +
  • [4] Conversion to Persistent or High-Risk Opioid Use After a New Prescription From the Emergency Department: Evidence From Washington Medicaid Beneficiaries
    Meisel, Zachary F.
    Lupulescu-Mann, Nicoleta
    Charlesworth, Christina J.
    Kim, Hyunjee
    Sun, Benjamin C.
    [J]. ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2019, 74 (05) : 611 - 621
  • [5] Effect of a Data-driven Intervention on Opioid Prescribing Intensity Among Emergency Department Providers: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Michael, Sean S.
    Babu, Kavita M.
    Androski, Christopher
    Reznek, Martin A.
    [J]. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2018, 25 (05) : 482 - 493
  • [6] The Effect Of Clinician Feedback Interventions On Opioid Prescribing
    Navathe, Amol S.
    Liao, Joshua M.
    Yan, Xiaowei S.
    Delgado, M. Kit
    Isenberg, William M.
    Landa, Howard M.
    Bond, Barbara L.
    Small, Dylan S.
    Rareshide, Charles A. L.
    Shen, Zijun
    Pepe, Rebecca S.
    Refai, Farah
    Lei, Victor J.
    Volpp, Kevin G.
    Patel, Mitesh S.
    [J]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2022, 41 (03) : 424 - 433
  • [7] Variability in opioid prescribing in veterans affairs emergency departments and urgent cares
    Sasson, Comilla
    Smith, Jason
    Kessler, Chad
    Haukoos, Jason
    Himstreet, Julianne
    Christopher, Melissa
    Emmendorfer, Thomas
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2019, 37 (06) : 1044 - 1047
  • [8] ARE WE ALL LESS RISKY AND MORE SKILLFUL THAN OUR FELLOW DRIVERS
    SVENSON, O
    [J]. ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 1981, 47 (02) : 143 - 148
  • [9] Emergency department provider and facility variation in opioid prescriptions for discharged patients
    Ward, Michael J.
    Diwas, K. C.
    Jenkins, Cathy A.
    Liu, Dandan
    Padaki, Amit
    Pines, Jesse M.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2019, 37 (05) : 851 - 858
  • [10] The Better-Than-Average Effect in Comparative Self-Evaluation: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis
    Zell, Ethan
    Strickhouser, Jason E.
    Sedikides, Constantine
    Alicke, Mark D.
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 2020, 146 (02) : 118 - 149