Search

OBJECTIVES: To determine parental preferences for diagnostic imaging tests (DITs) for paediatric appendicitis, to rank the attributes impacting the DIT selection and to identify DIT attributes that would cause parents to switch their DIT. METHODS: Parents of children who had an abdominal ultrasound (US) for right lower quadrant pain were interviewed. Two DITs were compared at a time, parents were asked to indicate their preferred test and to rank its attributes according to the impact each attribute had on their selection. The strength of their preference for the chosen DIT was measured by systematically adjusting attributes of the chosen DIT until the parent changed their choice. RESULTS: Fifty parents were interviewed. For US versus CT, more parents preferred US (68%, P=0.02) with higher importance ranks for cancer risk (P

Background The Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) is a screening instrument for assessing the risk of opioid-related aberrant behavior in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) patients. Objective This study aims to compare patient characteristics documented in the original ORT study with those identified in CNCP patients assessed using a physician-administered ORT in a tertiary care pain clinic in Toronto, Canada. Methodology This was a descriptive cross-sectional study of 322 consecutive new patients referred over 12 months. Data extraction included ORT scores, demographics, pain ratings, opioid, and other medication use at point of entry, diagnosis, and other variables. Characteristics were compared with those described in the original ORT study. Results The total mean ORT scores of patients in this study were related to several demographic (gender, age, marital status, and country of birth) and nondemographic variables (employment status, cigarette smoking, and contribution of biomedical and/or psychological factors to presentation). Prevalence of characteristics noted in this patient sample differed substantially from that found in Webster and Webster as the basis for ORT scores. Conclusion Significant differences existed between this study population and the patient sample from which the ORT was derived. Limitations of this study are discussed. We concur with the authors of the original study that the ORT may not be applicable in different pain populations and settings. Based on our findings, we encourage caution in interpreting the ORT in general CNCP settings until further studies are performed.