METHODS Opioid misuse has reached epidemic status in many countries. This crisis-recognized since 2014-questions the practices of prescribing and dispensing. Did this public health issue change pharmaceutical practices? This literature review presents pharmaceutical practices regarding treatment of noncancer pain. We will assess whether these practices changed after the declaration of the crisis. We will also present barriers and facilitators to their implementation in real life to understand the distance between them and current practices. A scoping review of the literature was conducted on PubMed, Medline, and Embase for references dealing with pharmaceutical practices regarding noncancer pain management, in French and English, from 2000 to 2018. RESULTS The search yielded 250 results, with 25 studies surviving the exclusion process. Twenty studies took place in the United States, the country most affected by the crisis. Interventions took place as interprofessional collaboration (n = 14), patient counseling (6), or a combination of these (5). Although the nature of the interventions remained constant through the crisis, the number of publications greatly increased over time. The studies demonstrated pharmacists' upstream contributions regarding pain management and opioid use. Several large-scale implementation issues, including knowledge gaps and communication barriers, have been reported in these studies and in others that gathered opinions and perspectives of prescribers, pharmacists, and patients. CONCLUSION Our review showed that the opioid crisis did not modify the nature of pharmaceutical practices regarding pain treatment and opioid management, but the number of studies reporting these practices greatly increased since its onset. Barriers to implementing the best practices to reduce opioid harm have been identified to explain slow integration in daily practice. Adjustments to teaching and practice methods such as a reviewed pain treatment curriculum, standardized tools, and decision-making algorithms could prove beneficial.

中文翻译：

---

阿片类药物危机之前和期间的制药实践：范围审查。

方法 阿片类药物滥用已在许多国家达到流行状态。这场危机——自 2014 年以来就被认识到——质疑处方和配药的做法。这个公共卫生问题是否改变了制药实践？这篇文献综述介绍了有关治疗非癌性疼痛的药物实践。我们将评估这些做法在宣布危机后是否发生了变化。我们还将介绍它们在现实生活中实施的障碍和促进因素，以了解它们与当前实践之间的距离。在 PubMed、Medline 和 Embase 上对 2000 年至 2018 年有关非癌性疼痛管理的药物实践的参考文献进行了范围审查。结果 搜索产生了 250 个结果，其中 25 个研究在排除过程中幸存下来. 在受危机影响最严重的美国进行了 20 项研究。干预措施包括跨专业合作 (n = 14)、患者咨询 (6) 或这些 (5) 的组合。尽管干预的性质在危机期间保持不变，但随着时间的推移，出版物的数量大大增加。这些研究证明了药剂师在疼痛管理和阿片类药物使用方面的上游贡献。在这些研究和其他收集处方者、药剂师和患者意见和观点的研究中，报告了一些大规模的实施问题，包括知识差距和沟通障碍。结论 我们的审查表明，阿片类药物危机并未改变有关疼痛治疗和阿片类药物管理的制药实践的性质，但自开始以来，报告这些做法的研究数量大大增加。已经确定了实施减少阿片类药物危害的最佳实践的障碍，以解释日常实践中整合缓慢的原因。调整教学和实践方法，例如审查疼痛治疗课程、标准化工具和决策算法，可能会证明是有益的。