The Role of Knowledge and Attitudes About Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Determining Treatment Use.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate how patient knowledge and beliefs regarding nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may influence the use of NSAIDs for osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Surveys of 334 adults with knee and/or hip OA were analyzed in this cross-sectional study. Familiarity with and perceptions of benefits/risks of NSAID use were measured to assess associations with the use of prescription and nonprescription oral NSAIDs. Multinomial logistic regression models were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: In this sample, 35.9% and 35.6% reported use of oral prescription and nonprescription-only NSAIDs, respectively. Hispanic participants, compared with non-Hispanic White participants, had lower perceived benefit (P = 0.005) and risk (P = 0.001) of prescription NSAIDs. The following were associated with prescription NSAID use instead of no NSAID use: having family/friends who used prescription (relative risk ratio [RRR] 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.05-7.47) and over-the-counter (OTC) (RRR 3.10; 95% CI 1.65-5.83) NSAIDs for OA, understanding the consequences of using both prescription (RRR 3.50; 95% CI 1.79-6.86) and OTC (RRR 2.80; 95% CI 1.39-5.65) NSAIDs, higher perceived benefit of both prescription (RRR 2.51; 95% CI 1.71-3.66) and OTC (RRR 1.44; 95% CI 1.01-2.06) NSAIDs, and lower perceived risk of both types of NSAIDs (prescription: RRR 0.63 [95% CI 0.46-0.87]; OTC: RRR 0.53 [95% CI 0.37-0.75]). Similar results were found when we assessed the relationship between these variables and OTC NSAID use versus no oral NSAID use. CONCLUSION: Adults with knee and/or hip OA were more likely to use NSAIDs if they were more familiar with, had an increased perceived benefit of, and had a decreased perceived risk of these drugs. Patients' perceptions and beliefs about NSAIDs should be evaluated when considering them for treatment.

Social & psychological factors associated with oral analgesic use in knee osteoarthritis management.

OBJECTIVE: Determine modifiable social and psychological health factors that are associated with use of oral opioid and non-opioid medications for OA. METHODS: Patients were categorized based on use of the following oral medications: opioids (with/without other oral analgesic treatments), non-opioid analgesics, and no oral analgesic treatment. We used multinomial logistic regression models to estimate adjusted relative risk ratios (RRRs) of using an opioid or a non-opioid analgesic (vs. no oral analgesic treatment), comparing patients by levels of social support (Medical Outcomes Study scale), health literacy ("How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?"), and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8). Models were adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: In this sample (mean age 64.2 years, 23.6% women), 30.6% (n = 110) reported taking opioid analgesics for OA, 54.2% (n = 195) reported non-opioid use, and 15.3% (n = 55) reported no oral analgesic use. Opioid users had lower mean social support scores (10.0 vs 10.5 vs 11.9, P = 0.007) and were more likely to have moderate-severe depressive symptoms (42.7% vs 24.1% vs 14.5%, P < 0.001). Health literacy did not differ by treatment group type. Having moderate-severe depression was associated with higher risk of opioid analgesic use compared to no oral analgesic use (RRR 2.96, 95%CI 1.08-8.07) when adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Neither social support nor health literacy was associated with opioid or non-opioid oral analgesic use in fully adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Knee OA patients with more severe depression symptoms, compared to those without, were more likely to report using opioid analgesics for OA.

Stereotyping among providers and consumers of public mental health services. The role of perceived group variability.

The authors examine stigmatization and mental illness, focusing on the role of perceived group variability in stereotype use. Consumers' and providers' in-group and out-group stereotypes were assessed. Although providers had extensive experience, they judged consumers more stereotypically and just as negatively as did the consumers themselves. Consumers' education and involvement in services were weakly predictive of more stereotypic, less variable, and more negative views of providers, whereas providers' education and involvement in services predicted more stereotypic but also more variable views of both groups. Perceived group stereotypicality predicted more stereotypic judgments of individuals, whereas perceived variability predicted less confidence in judgments. Because providers perceived greater variability, they were less confident in applying the stereotype to individuals. We suggest that increasing perceptions of the variability among consumers may lead to more sensitive use of diagnostic criteria, more individualized treatment, and a decrease in the negative effects of stigmatization.