To undertake further psychometric testing of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and examine whether reversing the scale reduced floor effects.

Survey.

UK primary care.

Adults (≥18 years) with three or more long-term conditions randomly selected from four general practices and invited by post.

Baseline survey: sociodemographics, MTBQ (original or version with scale reversed), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), four questions (from QQ-10) on ease of completing the questionnaires. Follow-up survey (1–4 weeks after baseline): MTBQ, TBQ and QQ-10. Anonymous data collected from electronic GP records: consultations (preceding 12 months) and long-term conditions. The proportion of missing data and distribution of responses were examined for the original and reversed versions of the MTBQ and the TBQ. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman’s rank correlation (R_s) assessed test–retest reliability and construct validity, respectively. Ease of completing the MTBQ and TBQ was compared. Interpretability was assessed by grouping global MTBQ scores into 0 and tertiles (>0).

244 adults completed the baseline survey (consent rate 31%, mean age 70 years) and 225 completed the follow-up survey. Reversing the scale did not reduce floor effects or data skewness. The global MTBQ scores had good test–retest reliability (ICC for agreement at baseline and follow-up 0.765, 95% CI 0.702 to 0.816). Global MTBQ score was correlated with global TBQ score (R_s 0.77, ps 0.17, p=0.010), and number of different general practitioners consulted (R_s 0.23, ps –0.063, p=0.330). Most participants agreed that both the MTBQ and TBQ were easy to complete and included aspects they were concerned about.

This study demonstrates test–retest reliability and ease of completion of the MTBQ and builds on a previous study demonstrating good content validity, construct validity and internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire.

Describe new opioid prescription claims, their clinical indications and annual trends among opioid naïve adults covered by the Quebec’s public drug insurance plan (QPDIP) for the fiscal years 2006/2007–2019/2020.

A retrospective observational study was conducted using data collected between 2006/2007 and 2019/2020 within the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System, a linkage administrative data.

A cohort of opioid naïve adults and new opioid users was created for each study year (median number=2 263 380 and 168 183, respectively, over study period).

No.

A new opioid prescription was defined as the first opioid prescription claimed by an opioid naïve adult during a given fiscal year. The annual incidence proportion for each year was then calculated and standardised for age. A hierarchical algorithm was built to identify the most likely clinical indication for this prescription. Descriptive and trend analyses were performed.

There was a 1.7% decrease of age-standardised annual incidence proportion during the study period, from 7.5% in 2006/2007 to 5.8% in 2019/2020. The decrease was highest after 2016/2017, reaching 5.5% annual percentage change. Median daily dose and days’ supply decreased from 27 to 25 morphine milligram equivalent/day and from 5 to 4 days between 2006/2007 and 2019/2020, respectively. Between 2006/2007 and 2019/2020, these prescriptions’ most likely clinical indications increased for cancer pain from 34% to 48%, for surgical pain from 31% to 36% and for dental pain from 9% to 11%. Inversely, the musculoskeletal pain decreased from 13% to 2%. There was good consistency between the clinical indications identified by the algorithm and prescriber’s specialty or user’s characteristics.

New opioid prescription claims (incidence, dose and days’ supply) decreased slightly over the last 14 years among QPDIP enrollees, especially after 2016/2017. Non-surgical and non-cancer pain became less common as their clinical indication.