If you personalize it, will they use it?: Self-reported and observed use of a tailored, internet-based pain self-management program

Engagement in Digital Self-management Interventions for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Digital interventions promise to increase access to non-pharmacological chronic pain treatment and reduce burden for both individuals seeking care and pain providers/clinics. Unfortunately, despite early evidence of efficacy, engagement in self-management digital interventions for chronic conditions is typically low. A comprehensive analysis into how engagement in these programs is measured and reported is warranted. The current systematic review evaluated engagement in digital self-management interventions for chronic pain and identified gaps to improve reporting of engagement data.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-registered systematic review using Boolean search terms to identify digital chronic pain self-management interventions that did not include clinician support. After removal of duplicates and screening, 150 full-text manuscripts were assessed, and 43 studies met inclusion criteria. Data was extracted and examined from included manuscripts.

RESULTS

Of the 43 included articles, five articles were based on 2 separate datasets, resulting in a final sample of 41 unique datasets representing 4205 participants that were mostly non-Hispanic White, female, and with at least some college education. Approximately 10% of studies did not report any data related to system use or self-reported engagement. Most engagement data consisted of mean system use variables, with a handful of studies describing self-reported use of skills and very few studies examining demographic variables associated with engagement.

DISCUSSION

To address identified gaps in the reviewed literature, we suggest guidelines for collecting and reporting engagement in digital chronic pain interventions. Consistent reporting of engagement data will improve evaluation, efficacy, and improvement of interventions designed to assist individuals who may otherwise not receive non-pharmacological pain treatment.

Implementation frameworks guiding digital self-management intervention in chronic pain: A scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The development, evaluation and implementation of digital self-management interventions for chronic pain have increased exponentially. While intervention outcomes appear promising to improve well-being and functioning in target populations, it is unclear how the development and evaluation processes were structured and how implementation was planned and executed. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive overview of implementation frameworks used to guide and evaluate scientific innovation in chronic pain.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Four bibliography databases (Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL) and two registries (PubMed Central, MedaRxiv) were systematically searched. Hits (n = 6830) and full texts (n = 351) were screened and read by two independent reviewers. Peer-reviewed articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

In total, 10 studies were identified that report on seven distinct interventions. Five implementation frameworks were utilized across these studies: Behavioural Interventions using Technology (BIT); Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR); mHealth Agile and User-Centered Research and Development Lifecycle; Medical Research Council (MRC); Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM). Frameworks were operationalized using qualitative and quantitative methods, evaluating the innovation on various levels (e.g., individual vs. organizational) and applying a variety of study designs (e.g., single-arm or large trials).

CONCLUSIONS

By utilizing implementation frameworks, access to evidence-based chronic pain care may be increased. Although the evidence on the utility of implementation frameworks to guide and evaluate digital self-management interventions is still limited, the body of literature is increasing. Future studies are urged to operationalize, communicate and discuss the innovation process, to promote transparency and replicability.

SIGNIFICANCE

The use of implementation frameworks to guide and evaluate digital self-management interventions for chronic pain is a recent development in the field. Several promising examples exist and are presented in this review. Currently, the evidence is still limited, and prospective studies need to transparently operationalize, communicate and discuss their efforts. By utilizing an implementation framework, promising interventions can be made available to end-users, closing the research-to-clinical practice gap and increasing access to evidence-based care to people with chronic pain.

Defining and operationalizing personalized psychological treatment - a systematic literature review

This systematic literature review aimed to propose a definition of personalized psychological treatment and to suggest how the definition can be operationalized. PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to 11 December 2023 for studies in which a definition of personalized psychological treatment was included or a systematic operationalization of personalized psychological treatment was described. Based on a narrative synthesis of the collected definitions, summary categories were developed that informed the proposed definition. Operationalizations were described according to what aspect of treatment, how and when treatment was personalized. The extent to which the operationalizations deviated from the proposed definition was assessed. Thirty-four studies with definitions and 200 with operationalizations were included. The following definition was proposed: personalized psychological treatment aims to optimize treatment outcome for the individual patient by tailoring treatment to unique or specific needs, preferences or other characteristics and includes a systematic adaptation of treatment or a differentiation between treatment strategies. Based on the operationalizations, timing of personalization, specification of the systematic approach and treatment elements that could be personalized were added to the proposed definition. Evidence-based personalization of psychological treatments can be enhanced by clear operationalization based on a comprehensive definition of personalization.

In-person cognitive behavioural therapy vs. usual care after surgical management of extremity fractures: an unsuccessful feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Extremity fractures are common, and most are managed operatively; however, despite successful reduction, up to half of patients report persistent post-surgical pain. Furthermore, psychological factors such as stress, distress, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance behaviors have been associated with the development of chronic pain. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) vs. usual care on persistent post-surgical pain among patients with a surgically managed extremity fracture.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized to either in-person CBT or usual care. We used four criteria to judge the composite measure of feasibility: 1) successful implementation of CBT at each clinical site, 2) 40 patients recruited within 6 months, 3) treatment compliance in a minimum 36 of 40 participants (90%), and 4) 32 of 40 participants (80%) achieving follow-up at one year. The primary clinical outcome was persistent post-surgical pain at one year after surgery.

RESULTS

Only two of the four participating sites were able to implement the CBT regimen due to difficulties with identifying certified therapists who had the capacity to accommodate additional patients into their schedule within the required timeframe (i.e., 8 weeks of their fracture). Given the challenges associated with CBT implementation, only one site was able to actively recruit patients. This site screened 86 patients and enrolled 3 patients (3.5%) over a period of three months. Participants were unable to comply with the in-person CBT, with no participants attending an in-person CBT session. Follow-up at one year could not be assessed as the pilot study was stopped early, three months into the study, due to failure to achieve the other three feasibility criteria.

CONCLUSION

Our pilot trial failed to demonstrate the feasibility of a trial of in-person CBT versus usual care to prevent persistent pain after surgical repair of traumatic long-bone fractures and re-enforces the importance of establishing feasibility before embarking on definitive trials. Protocol modifications to address the identified barriers include the delivery of our intervention as a therapist-guided, remote CBT program.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT03196258); Registered June 22, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03196258.