Individuals with chronic pain using opioids: Challenging treatment choices, shared decision-makers, or risk-makers? A critical discourse analysis of Belgian policy documents

Le résumé fourni par la source

Chronic pain, defined as pain persisting for more than three months, affects one in four Belgian adults. Treating chronic pain comprises challenges for patients and clinicians as the term encompasses diverse conditions such as fibromyalgia, migraine, and long-term pain without a known biomedical cause. Additionally, growing evidence highlights the limited efficacy of opioids in managing chronic non-cancer pain. This has prompted critical policy changes in pain management, including shifts away from opioid use. This study explores how Belgian policy documents depict patients, healthcare providers, and therapeutic relationships within the context of opioid use in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. A critical discourse analysis of 32 Belgian Dutch-language policy documents was performed using Fairclough's framework. This approach examines how language in texts reflects and shapes social power dynamics and ideologies, and allows us to gain insight into the policy discourses surrounding opioid use for chronic pain. Based on our analysis, we suggest that written policy texts about the use of opioids to manage chronic pain are constructed through the deployment of three discourses: a medical authority discourse, a patient empowerment discourse, and a high-risk medication discourse. While all discourses are rooted in the biopsychosocial pain model, they prioritize different aspects of chronic pain management. Whereas the medical authority discourse emphasizes the decision-making role of physicians, the patient empowerment discourse shifts attention to patients' experiences and preferences. Lastly, the high-risk medication discourse underscores opioids' addictive potential. These discourses reflect varying perspectives on chronic pain management and have different implications for clinical practice. The findings offer valuable insights into how Belgian policy documents discursively construct or challenge therapeutic relationships and stigma.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.