RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In Europe, opioid use has surged, largely due to prescriptions for chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP). General practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) play a major role in opioid prescribing for non-malignant pain. Exploring their personal beliefs and practices might reveal underlying mechanisms to identify measures that could halt the further escalation of opioid use. METHODS: Guided by the health belief model, a survey was designed and distributed nationwide to examine the practices and beliefs of GPs and CPs in the domains: threats, benefits, barriers and self-efficacy. The results of GPs and CPs were compared at the statement level using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Of 214 GPs and 212 CPs who completed the survey, the majority agreed that too many opioids are used in the treatment of chronic non-malignant pain (66.8% GPs and 66.5% CPs). Furthermore, they were concerned about the addictive potential of opioids (83.1% GPs and 71.7% CPs). In general, both professions have concerns about opioid use. GPs report a slightly higher degree of self-efficacy and perceive fewer benefits from opioids in treating CNMP. GPs and CPs valued the recommended measures to reduce opioid prescribing, yet less than half actively implement these strategies in their clinics. CONCLUSION: GPs and CPs believe that opioids are being used too frequently to treat CNMP. However, both professions lack the actions to improve opioid-related care. GPs and CPs require education, collaboration and tools to implement guidelines on non-malignant pain and opioids. SIGNIFICANCE: This study, guided by the health belief model, reveals that general practitioners and community pharmacists have serious concerns about opioid use in chronic non-malignant pain. Despite shared concerns, both professions differ in their beliefs about opioid benefits and perceived self-efficacy. Both professions have in common that they value recommended measures to reduce opioid prescribing. Also, they both struggle to implement strategies, emphasizing the urgent need for education, collaboration and tools to align practices with guidelines on non-malignant pain and opioids.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Several studies described that COVID-19 vaccinations can cause menstrual disorders. Our study aimed to describe whether this also resulted in more general practitioner (GP) consultations for menstrual disorders after COVID-19 vaccination, based on a large cohort study. METHODS: A retrospective self-controlled cohort study was performed including vaccinated women in 2021 aged 12-49 years from two large, representative GP databases in the Netherlands. Incidence rates and incidence rate ratio's (IRR) were calculated using Poisson regression, adjusting for SARS-CoV-2 infection as time-varying confounder. The exposed period was set at maximum six months after each COVID-19 vaccination and the non-exposed period was defined as all-time outside the exposed period. RESULTS: The cohort included 631,802 women, of which 18,986 (3 %) consulted the GP for a menstrual disorder during 2021. Increased GP consultations were observed among 12-14 year olds for amenorrhea/hypomenorrhea/oligomenorrhea (IRR: 1.85, 95 % CI: 1.30-2.65) and irregular/frequent menstruation (IRR: 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.06-1.69) after COVID-19 vaccination in general, and after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccination (IRR: 1.87, 95 % CI: 1.31-2.67 for amenorrhea/hypomenorrhea/oligomenorrhea and IRR: 1.35, 95 % CI: 1.06-1.70 for irregular/frequent menstruation). Persons from this age group were in general also vaccinated with Pfizer/BioNTech. No increase in the frequency of GP consultations were observed for older age groups, other vaccine brands, and potential risk groups. CONCLUSION: For the majority of women, no increased GP consultations for menstrual disorders was found. Solely for the youngest age group (12-14 year olds) increased GP consultations for specific types of menstrual disorders was found after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccination.