4.3 Article

Trends in Prescription Opioid Use in Motor Vehicle Crash Injuries in the United States: 2014-2018

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192114445

关键词

opioids; motor vehicle crash; trends; United States; non-fatal injury; emergency visits

资金

  1. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Ruckersville, VA, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the usage of prescription opioids among nonfatal motor vehicle crash injuries in the United States from 2014 to 2018. The prevalence of prescription opioids decreased over time and varied spatially. The decrease in prevalence was consistent with the decrease in opioid dispensing rate and high-dose opioids.
Motor vehicle crashes (MVC) cause over three million people to be nonfatally injured each year in the United States alone. We investigated trends and patterns in prescription opioid usage among nonfatal MVC injuries in 50 states in the US and the District of Columbia from 2014 to 2018. All emergency department visits for an MVC event (N = 142,204) were identified from the IBM (R) MarketScan (R) Databases. Using log-binomial regression models, we investigated whether the prevalence of prescription opioids in MVC injuries varied temporally, spatially, or by enrollees' characteristics. Adjusting for age, relationship to the primary beneficiary, employment status, geographic region, and residence in metropolitan statistical area, the prevalence decreased by 5% (95% CI: 2-8%) in 2015, 18% (95% CI: 15-20%) in 2016, 31% (95% CI: 28-33%) in 2017, and 49% (95% CI: 46-51%) in 2018, compared to 2014. Moreover, the prevalence decreased by 28% (95% CI: 26-29%) after the publication of the CDC Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. Spatial variations were observed in the prevalence and temporal trend of prevalence. The decreasing trend in the prevalence of prescription opioids in MVC is consistent with the decrease in the dispensing rate of opioids and the percentage of high-dosage opioids in the study population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据