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

Author:

Liao Joshua M.12,Sun Chuxuan3,Yan Xiaowei S4,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.23,Delgado M. Kit27,Lei Victor J.8,Shen Zijun4,Navathe Amol S.23

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA

2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

3. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA

4. Sutter Health, Sacramento, CA

5. Ascension, St. Louis, MO

6. Department of Statistics and Data Science, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

7. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA

8. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3