Defining “Doctor Shopping” with Dispensing Data: A Scoping Review

Author:

Delcher Chris12ORCID,Bae Jungjun12,Wang Yanning3,Doung Michelle4,Fink David S5,Young Henry W6

Affiliation:

1. Institute for Pharmaceutical Outcomes & Policy (IPOP), Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

2. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

3. Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

4. Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

5. Division of Translational Epidemiology, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York, USA

6. Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Abstract

Abstract Background “Doctor shopping” typically refers to patients that seek controlled substance prescriptions from multiple providers with the presumed intent to obtain these medications for non-medical use and/or diversion. The purpose of this scoping review is to document and examine the criteria used to identify “doctor shopping” from dispensing data in the United States. Methods A scoping review was conducted on “doctor shopping” or analogous terminology from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2020, using the Web of Science Core Collection (seven citation indexes). Our search was limited to the United States only, English-language, peer-reviewed and US federal government studies. Studies without explicit “doctor shopping” criteria were excluded. Key components of these criteria included the number of prescribers and dispensers, dispensing period, and drug class (e.g., opioids). Results Of 9,845 records identified, 95 articles met the inclusion criteria and our pool of studies ranged from years 2003 to 2020. The most common threshold-based or count definition was (≥4 Prescribers [P] AND ≥4 Dispensers [D]) (n = 12). Thirty-three studies used a 365-day detection window. Opioids alone were studied most commonly (n = 69), followed by benzodiazepines and stimulants (n = 5 and n = 2, respectively). Only 39 (41%) studies provided specific drug lists with active ingredients. Conclusion Relatively simple P x D criteria for identifying “doctor shopping” are still the dominant paradigm with the need for ongoing validation. The value of P x D criteria may change through time with more diverse methods applied to dispensing data emerging.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Neurology (clinical),General Medicine

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