Evaluating the feasibility of delivering a pain management programme for adults living with sickle cell disease

Background

Pain is the prominent feature of sickle cell disease (SCD) and negatively affects quality of life. Delivery of pain management programmes (PMPs) has been suggested in clinical guidelines for pain management in SCD; however, further evidence of the feasibility and effectiveness of PMPs in this population is needed. This study explored the feasibility of delivering a sickle cell pain management programme (SCPMP) for adults within a haemoglobinopathies service.

Methods

A single arm, repeated-measures observational design was used to determine feasibility of delivering the SCPMP at one study site. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment, completion of treatment and outcome measures, satisfaction, credibility and acceptability to participants. Secondary feasibility outcomes were treatment outcomes and processes, frequency of vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) and healthcare utilisation.

Results

Four of five feasibility criteria were met. Annual recruitment of eight participants to a SCPMP was not achieved. Twenty-nine people began a SCPMP during the study period. Twenty-five (86.2%) participants attended ≥5/8 sessions and 21(84%) programme completers provided all end of programme questionnaires. Mean scores of >7 on ten-point scales were seen across satisfaction and credibility questions. At least moderate (Hedges g >0.5) effect sizes were seen in pre-post SCPMP measures of pain interference, anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, pain-related worry and acceptance. A small (Hedges g 0.4) effect size was seen in HRQoL. Following SCPMP attendance, mean frequency of self-reported VOC and hospital admissions reduced.

Conclusions

This study suggests that, given an adequate source of referrals, a SCPMP is feasible to deliver and appears acceptable and credible to participants. Exploration of influences on recruitment, such as barriers to group interventions, would be illuminating, prior to investigating feasibility of an adequately powered randomised-controlled trial.

Intensive management for moderate rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study of patients' and practitioners' views

BACKGROUND

The TITRATE trial seeks to test whether intensive management is valuable in achieving disease remission in moderately active rheumatoid arthritis. Intensive management is a complex intervention consisting of: 1) 12 x monthly appointments, 2) tailored 'treatment support' based on motivational interviewing techniques, 3) optimised medication (including the opportunity for biologics), 4) provision of a Patient Handbook, and 5) shared treatment planning. This study aims to understand: a) patients' and practitioners' views on the feasibility and acceptability of intensive management, and b) patients' and practitioners' experience of receiving/providing intensive management.

METHODS

A qualitative study, nested within a randomised controlled trial. Participants were patients (n = 15) in the intensive management arm of the trial and rheumatology practitioners (n = 16) providing the intensive management intervention, from 18/42 clinics across England. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis and iterative categorization.

RESULTS

Monthly appointments were largely acceptable to both groups who cited several treatment benefits (e.g. regular review of medication, practitioners built close relationships with patients). Practitioners were 'fairly confident' using the motivational interviewing techniques. Learning to pace was the most commonly reported self-management technique that patients and healthcare professionals worked on together, followed by gaining control over pain and fatigue. Practitioners liked having the option to offer biologics to patients with moderate RA. Most patients found the optimised medication (following monthly joint assessment) helpful and side-effects experienced were resolved. Variation existed in the extent to which patients engaged with the Patient Handbook and shared treatment planning, with those who did engage doing so in the early stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Feedback from patient participants about the intensive management intervention was positive. They found increased medication helpful. Continuity of care with the same healthcare professional at regular intensive management sessions, and the treatment support provided, were highly rated. Feedback from practitioners indicated that intensive management training is feasible. Evidence from the interviews showed that some practitioners applied motivational interviewing techniques during standard care appointments and they would like the opportunity to address lifestyle issues with patients.