Pivoting to virtual delivery for managing chronic pain with nonpharmacological treatments: implications for pragmatic research

Utility of the PICOTS framework to assess clinical trial disruptions: monitoring the impact of COVID-19 in the Pain Management Collaboratory

OBJECTIVE

Despite careful design of clinical trials, unforeseen disruptions can arise. The PICOTS (Patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timepoints, Setting) framework was used to assess disruptions in pain management research imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) within the Pain Management Collaboratory.

METHODS

Rapid qualitative methods were employed to identify trial disruptions due to COVID-19 in 11 pragmatic clinical trials of nonpharmacological approaches for pain management. The PICOTS framework was applied by investigators of 4 Collaboratory trials selected to cover 4 types of trial designs (individually randomized, stepped-wedge, cluster, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial-SMART). Interviews with the lead investigators of these trials were completed, and findings were presented/discussed on video calls over a 6-month period (March-August 2021) from which themes/lessons learned were identified and consensus reached.

RESULTS

Investigators indicated that patient populations remained generally stable. A major COVID-19 trial disruption was moving from in-person to virtual care affecting delivery of interventions/comparators and outcome assessments. The resultant mixed-mode of care delivery created issues with intervention fidelity posing analytic challenges. COVID-19 also induced ongoing/intermittent delays and other barriers to accessing primary and specialty care at some facilities, creating research capacity issues affecting delivery of experimental interventions requiring sustained, reliable participation of clinical partners. Study designs most affected by COVID-19 were stepped-wedge (intervention/comparator changing over time), cluster (increased site variability inflating intracluster correlation), and SMART (second-stage randomizations disrupted); stratified individually-randomized trials were less vulnerable because of individual-level randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

PICOTS provides a framework for assessing the impact of trial disruptions in a structured manner. Given the COVID-19 experience, it is important for researchers to consider the potential impact of future trial disruptions during study planning.

Comparing Pain Outcomes and Treatment Adherence Between In-Person and Virtual Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs at the San Francisco VA Health Care System

OBJECTIVE

This study compared clinical pain outcomes between patients in a pain treatment program that was conducted in-person, compared with a virtual program.

METHODS

In-person (N=127) and virtual (N=101) pain treatment programs were compared based on patient-reported, practitioner-collected, and medical record data. The patients were measured at baseline and post-treatment (week 12 for In-Person and week 8 for Virtual patients). We employed the last observation carried forward (LOCF) to handle missing data.

RESULTS

Both the In-Person and Virtual groups were similar in regard to all baseline outcomes, except the In-person group having significantly more co-morbidities at baseline, with particularly more cases of mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental diseases. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in the pain-related measurements of pain interference and pain catastrophizing thoughts, but neither group displayed a change in average pain across treatment. Further, both groups improved significantly on emotional well-being scores, but not on physical functioning scores. No significant differences existed between groups on outcomes, except for pain catastrophizing, which was higher in the Virtual group at both time points. The Virtual group had lower rates of dropouts compared with In-Person, while the In-Person group had a larger proportion reach a clinically meaningful change in pain-related outcomes, defined as a >30% improvement.

DISCUSSION

While some changes were unique to the In-Person program, overall, patients in the Virtual program achieved similar treatment outcomes, suggesting that it can successfully treat Veterans seeking pain management, with less need for in-person facilities for both patients and clinicians.

Outcomes of a Remotely Delivered Complementary and Integrative Health Partnered Intervention to Improve Chronic Pain and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Nonpharmacological interventions for veterans are needed to help them manage chronic pain and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Complementary and integrative health (CIH) interventions such as Mission Reconnect (MR) seek to provide veterans with the option of a partnered, self-directed intervention that teaches CIH skills remotely to support symptom management.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the physical, psychological, and social outcomes of a self-directed mobile- and web-based CIH intervention for veterans with comorbid chronic pain and PTSD and their partners and qualitatively examine their MR user experience.

METHODS

A sample of veteran-partner dyads (n=364) were recruited to participate in a mixed methods multisite waitlist control randomized controlled trial to measure physical, psychological, and social outcomes, with pain as the primary outcome and PTSD, depression, stress, sleep, quality of life, and relationships as secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models were constructed for primary and secondary patient-reported outcomes. The quantitative analysis was triangulated using qualitative interviews from a subsample of dyads (n=35) to examine participants' perceptions of their program experience.

RESULTS

Dyads were randomized to 2 groups: intervention (MR; 140/364, 38.5%) and waitlist control (136/364, 37.4%). No significant change was observed in overall pain, sleep, PTSD, quality of life, relationship satisfaction, overall self-compassion, or compassion for others. A significant reduction in pain interference in mood (P=.008) and sleep (P=.008) was observed among the veteran MR group that was not observed in the waitlist control group. We also observed a positive effect of the MR intervention on a reduction in negative affect associated with pain (P=.049), but this effect did not exceed the adjusted significance threshold (P=.01). Significant improvements were also observed for partners in the affection (P=.007) and conflict (P=.001) subdomains of the consensus and satisfaction domains. In contrast to quantitative results, qualitative data indicated that intervention impacts included improved sleep and reduced pain, anxiety, and stress and, in contrast to the survey data, overall improvement in PTSD symptoms and social relationships. Participants' overall impressions of MR highlight usability and navigation, perceptions on packaging and content, and barriers to and facilitators of MR use.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive CIH-based modalities can be delivered using web and mobile apps but should be developed and tailored using established best practices. MR may be beneficial for veterans with pain and PTSD and their partners. Further pragmatic trials and implementation efforts are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03593772; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03593772.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/13666.

Economic Evaluation of Videoconference Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Behavioral Activation Therapy for Depression Versus Usual Care Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain Plus Comorbid Depressive Symptoms

Chronic pain and depression are frequently comorbid conditions associated with significant health care and social costs. This study examined the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of videoconference-based group forms of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Behavioral Activation Therapy for Depression (BATD), as a complement to treatment-as-usual (TAU), for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) plus depressive symptoms, compared to TAU alone. A trial-based economic evaluation (n = 234) was conducted from a governmental and health care perspective with a time horizon of 12 months. Primary outcomes were the Brief Pain Inventory-Interference Scale (BPI-IS) and Quality Adjusted Life Year. Compared to TAU, ACT achieved a significant reduction in total costs (d = .47), and BATD achieved significant reductions in indirect (d = .61) and total costs (d = .63). Significant improvements in BPI-IS (d = .73 and d = .66, respectively) and Quality Adjusted Life Year scores (d = .46 and d = .28, respectively) were found in ACT and BATD compared to TAU. No significant differences in costs and outcomes were found between ACT and BATD. In the intention-to-treat analyses, from the governmental and health care perspective, no significant differences in cost reduction and incremental effects were identified in the comparison between ACT, BATD, and TAU. However, in the complete case analysis, significant incremental effects of ACT (∆BPI-IS = -1.57 and -1.39, respectively) and BATD (∆BPI-IS = -1.08 and -1.04, respectively) compared with TAU were observed. In the per-protocol analysis, only the significant incremental effects of ACT (∆BPI-IS = -1.68 and -1.43, respectively) compared to TAU were detected. In conclusion, ACT and BATD might be efficient options in the management of CLBP plus comorbid depression symptoms as compared to usual care. However, no clear difference was found in the comparison between the 2 active therapies regarding cost-effectiveness or cost-utility. PERSPECTIVE: The economic evaluation of psychological therapies for the management of complex conditions can be used in decision-making and resource allocation. This study provides evidence that ACT and BATD are more effective and involve a greater reduction in costs than usual care in the management of CLBP plus comorbid depressive symptoms. TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04140838.

Telemedicine for Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain Lacks High-Quality Evidence on Delivery Modes and Effectiveness: An Umbrella Review

Background: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Telemedicine is of growing importance, yet impacts on treatment efficacy remain unclear. Objective: This umbrella review (CRD42022298047) examined the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions on pain intensity, disability, psychological function, quality of life, self-efficacy, and adverse events in MSK pain. Methods: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to August 9, 2022, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, including telemedicine-delivered exercise, education, and psychological interventions, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). AMSTAR-2 was implemented. Standardized mean differences (SMDs; negative favors telemedicine) were extracted as effect estimates. Results: Of 1,135 records, 20 reviews (RCTs: n = 97, participants: n = 15,872) were included. Pain intensity SMDs were -0.66 to 0.10 for mixed pain (estimates: n = 16), -0.64 to -0.01 for low-back pain (n = 9), -0.31 to -0.15 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), -0.29 for knee pain (n = 1), -0.66 to -0.58 for fibromyalgia (n = 2), -0.16 for back pain (n = 1), and -0.09 for rheumatic disorders (n = 1). Disability SMDs were -0.50 to 0.10 for mixed pain (n = 14), -0.39 to 0.00 for low-back pain (n = 8), -0.41 to -0.04 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), -0.22 for knee pain (n = 1), and -0.56 for fibromyalgia (n = 1). Methodological quality was "critically low" for 17 reviews. Effectiveness tended to favor telemedicine for all secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Primary RCTs are required that compare telemedicine interventions with in-person delivery of the intervention (noninferiority trials), consider safety, assess videoconferencing, and combine different treatment approaches.

Virtual group psychotherapy for chronic pain: exploring the impact of the virtual medium on participants' experiences

BACKGROUND

Virtual psychotherapy for chronic pain (CP) has been shown to be feasible, efficacious, and acceptable; however, little is known about how virtual delivery of group psychotherapy affects participants' experiences. This study aimed to explore the impact of a virtual medium during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on social interactions and therapeutic processes in the context of group psychotherapy for CP management.

METHODS

This qualitative, interview-based study collected data on 18 individuals who participated in virtual group psychotherapy in a tertiary care pain management unit.

RESULTS

Results of the thematic analysis showed 4 themes. First, the ability to participate and connect was modified by not meeting in person. Connections also occurred differently as the usual patterns of interactions changed. Participants described important shifts in how emotions are communicated and subsequent experience of empathy. Finally, the commonality of chronic pain experience was identified as a central driver of connection between participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed impacts of the virtual medium on group psychotherapy dynamics and processes were found. Future research could explore ways to mitigate the negative impacts.

A patient activation intervention in primary care for patients with chronic pain on long term opioid therapy: results from a randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Given significant risks associated with long-term prescription opioid use, there is a need for non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic pain. Activating patients to manage chronic pain has the potential to improve health outcomes. The ACTIVATE study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 4-session patient activation intervention in primary care for patients on long-term opioid therapy.

METHODS

The two-arm, pragmatic, randomized trial was conducted in two primary care clinics in an integrated health system from June 2015-August 2018. Consenting participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 189) or usual care (n = 187). Participants completed online and interviewer-administered surveys at baseline, 6- and 12- months follow-up. Prescription opioid use was extracted from the EHR. The primary outcome was patient activation assessed by the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Secondary outcomes included mood, function, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management strategies, and patient portal use. We conducted a repeated measure analysis and reported between-group differences at 12 months.

RESULTS

At 12 months, the intervention and usual care arms had similar PAM scores. However, compared to usual care at 12 months, the intervention arm demonstrated: less moderate/severe depression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95%CI 0.18-0.87); higher overall health (OR = 3.14, 95%CI 1.64-6.01); greater use of the patient portal's health/wellness resources (OR = 2.50, 95%CI 1.42-4.40) and lab/immunization history (OR = 2.70, 95%CI 1.29-5.65); and greater use of meditation (OR = 2.72; 95%CI 1.61-4.58) and exercise/physical therapy (OR = 2.24, 95%CI 1.29-3.88). At 12 months, the intervention arm had a higher physical health measure (mean difference 1.63; 95%CI: 0.27-2.98).

CONCLUSION

This trial evaluated the effectiveness of a primary care intervention in improving patient activation and patient-reported outcomes among adults with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy. Despite a lack of improvement in patient activation, a brief intervention in primary care can improve outcomes such as depression, overall health, non-pharmacologic pain management, and engagement with the health system.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered on 10/27/14 on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02290223).

Use of implementation mapping in the planning of a hybrid type 1 pragmatic clinical trial: the BeatPain Utah study

BACKGROUND

Considerable disparities in chronic pain management have been identified. Persons in rural, lower income, and minoritized communities are less likely to receive evidence-based, nonpharmacologic care. Telehealth delivery of nonpharmacologic, evidence-based interventions for persons with chronic pain is a promising strategy to lessen disparities, but implementation comes with many challenges. The BeatPain Utah study is a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation pragmatic clinical trial investigating telehealth strategies to provide nonpharmacologic care from physical therapists to persons with chronic back pain receiving care in ommunity health centers (CHCs). CHCs provide primary care to all persons regardless of ability to pay. This paper outlines the use of implementation mapping to develop a multifaceted implementation plan for the BeatPain study.

METHODS

During a planning year for the BeatPain trial, we developed a comprehensive logic model including the five-step implementation mapping process informed by additional frameworks and theories. The five iterative implementation mapping steps were addressed in the planning year: (1) conduct needs assessments for involved groups; (2) identify implementation outcomes, performance objectives, and determinants; (3) select implementation strategies; (4) produce implementation protocols and materials; and (5) evaluate implementation outcomes.

RESULTS

CHC leadership/providers, patients, and physical therapists were identified as involved groups. Barriers and assets were identified across groups which informed identification of performance objectives necessary to implement two key processes: (1) electronic referral of patients with back pain in CHC clinics to the BeatPain team and (2) connecting patients with physical therapists providing telehealth. Determinants of the performance objectives for each group informed our choice of implementation strategies which focused on training, education, clinician support, and tailoring physical therapy interventions for telehealth delivery and cultural competency. We selected implementation outcomes for the BeatPain trial to evaluate the success of our implementation strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation mapping provided a comprehensive and systematic approach to develop an implementation plan during the planning phase for our ongoing hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. We will be able to evaluate the implementation strategies used in the BeatPain Utah study to inform future efforts to implement telehealth delivery of evidence-based pain care in CHCs and other settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04923334 . Registered June 11, 2021.

Use of implementation mapping in the planning of a hybrid type 1 pragmatic clinical trial: the BeatPain Utah study

Background

Considerable disparities in chronic pain management have been identified. Persons in rural, lower income and minoritized communities are less likely to receive evidence-based, nonpharmacologic care. Telehealth delivery of nonpharmacologic, evidence-based interventions for persons with chronic pain is a promising strategy to lessen disparities, but implementation comes with many challenges. The BeatPain Utah study is a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation pragmatic clinical trial investigating telehealth strategies to provide nonpharmacologic care from physical therapists to persons with chronic back pain receiving care in Community Health Centers (CHCs). CHCs provide primary care to all persons regardless of ability to pay. This paper outlines the use of implementation mapping to develop a multifaceted implementation plan for the BeatPain study.

Methods

During a planning year for the BeatPain trial we developed a comprehensive logic model including the 5-step implementation mapping process informed by additional frameworks and theories. The five iterative implementation mapping steps were addressed in the planning year; 1) conduct needs assessments for involved groups; 2) identify implementation outcomes, performance objectives and determinants; 3) select implementation strategies; 4) produce implementation protocols and materials; and 5) evaluate implementation outcomes.

Results

CHC leadership/providers, patients and physical therapists were identified as involved groups. Barriers and assets were identified across groups which informed identification of performance objectives necessary to implement two key processes; 1) electronic referral of patients with back pain in CHC clinics to the BeatPain team; and 2) connecting patients with physical therapists providing telehealth. Determinants of the performance objectives for each group informed our choice of implementation strategies which focused on training, education, clinician support and tailoring physical therapy interventions for telehealth delivery and cultural competency. We selected implementation outcomes for the BeatPain trial to evaluate the success of our implementation strategies.

Conclusions

Implementation mapping provided a comprehensive and systematic approach to develop an implementation plan during the planning phase for our ongoing hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. We will be able to evaluate the implementation strategies used in the BeatPain Utah study to inform future efforts to implement telehealth delivery of evidence-based pain care in CHCs and other settings.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04923334. Registered June 11, 2021 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04923334.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on nonpharmacological pain management trials in military and veteran healthcare settings: an evaluation informed by implementation science

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare and clinical research, including a suite of 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), across clinics within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DOD). These PCTs were designed to evaluate an array of nonpharmacological treatments and models of care for treatment of patients with pain and co-occurring conditions. The aims of the study are to (a) describe modifications to PCTs and interventions to address the evolving pandemic and (b) describe the application of implementation science methods for evaluation of those PCT modifications. The project used a two-phase, sequential, mixed-methods design. In Phase I, we captured PCT disruptions and modifications via a Research Electronic Data Capture questionnaire, using Periodic Reflections methods as a guide. In Phase II, we utilized the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) taxonomy to develop a focus group interview guide and checklist that would provide more in-depth data than Phase I. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Phase I revealed that all PCTs made between two and six trial modifications. Phase II, FRAME-guided analyses showed that the key goals for modifying interventions were increasing treatment feasibility and decreasing patient exposure to COVID-19, while preserving intervention core elements. Context (format) modifications led eight PCTs to modify parts of the interventions for virtual delivery. Content modifications added elements to enhance patient safety; tailored interventions for virtual delivery (counseling, exercise, mindfulness); and modified interventions involving manual therapies. Implementation science methods identified near-real-time disruptions and modifications to PCTs focused on pain management in veteran and military healthcare settings.

Efficacy of Videoconference Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Behavioral Activation Therapy for Depression (BATD) for Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) Plus Comorbid Depressive Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial (IMPACT Study)

This study examined the efficacy of adding a remote, synchronous, group, videoconference-based form of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) or behavioral activation therapy for depression (BATD) to treatment-as-usual (TAU) in 234 patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) plus comorbid depressive symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned to ACT, BATD, or TAU. Compared to TAU, ACT produced a significant reduction in pain interference at posttreatment (d = .64) and at follow-up (d = .73). BATD was only superior to TAU at follow-up (d = .66). A significant reduction in pain catastrophizing was reported by patients assigned to ACT and BATD at posttreatment (d = .45 and d = .59, respectively) and at follow-up (d = .59, in both) compared to TAU. Stress was significantly reduced at posttreatment by ACT in comparison to TAU (d = .69). No significant between-group differences were found in depressive or anxiety symptoms. Clinically relevant number needed to treat (NNT) values for reduction in pain interference were obtained at posttreatment (ACT vs TAU = 4) and at follow-up (ACT vs TAU = 3; BATD vs TAU = 5). In both active therapies, improvements in pain interference at follow-up were significantly related to improvements at posttreatment in psychological flexibility. These findings suggest that new forms of cognitive-behavioral therapy are clinically useful in improving pain interference and pain catastrophizing. Further research on evidence-based change processes is required to understand the therapeutic needs of patients with chronic pain and comorbid conditions. TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04140838. PERSPECTIVE: Group videoconference-based ACT and BATD showed greater efficacy than TAU for reducing pain interference and pain catastrophizing in patients with CLBP plus clinically relevant depression. Psychological flexibility appeared to be the main contributor to treatment effects for both ACT and BATD.

Comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of remote (telehealth and online) cognitive behavioral therapy-based treatments for high-impact chronic pain relative to usual care: study protocol for the RESOLVE multisite randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an effective but underused treatment for high-impact chronic pain. Increased access to CBT-CP services for pain is of critical public health importance, particularly for rural and medically underserved populations who have limited access due to these services being concentrated in urban and high income areas. Making CBT-CP widely available and more affordable could reduce barriers to CBT-CP use.

METHODS

As part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term® (NIH HEAL) initiative, we designed and implemented a comparative effectiveness, 3-arm randomized control trial comparing remotely delivered telephonic/video and online CBT-CP-based services to usual care for patients with high-impact chronic pain. The RESOLVE trial is being conducted in 4 large integrated healthcare systems located in Minnesota, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington state and includes demographically diverse populations residing in urban and rural areas. The trial compares (1) an 8-session, one-on-one, professionally delivered telephonic/video CBT-CP program; and (2) a previously developed and tested 8-session online CBT-CP-based program (painTRAINER) to (3) usual care augmented by a written guide for chronic pain management. Participants are followed for 1 year post-allocation and are assessed at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months post-allocation. The primary outcome is minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥ 30% reduction) in pain severity (composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) assessed by a modified 11-item version of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include pain severity, pain intensity, and pain-related interference scores, quality of life measures, and patient global impression of change at 3, 6, and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness is assessed by incremental cost per additional patient with MCID in primary outcome and by cost per quality-adjusted life year achieved. Outcome assessment is blinded to group assignment.

DISCUSSION

This large-scale trial provides a unique opportunity to rigorously evaluate and compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 2 relatively low-cost and scalable modalities for providing CBT-CP-based treatments to persons with high-impact chronic pain, including those residing in rural and other medically underserved areas with limited access to these services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04523714. This trial was registered on 24 August 2020.

Healthcare Access and Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic for Black Veterans with Chronic Pain: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant disruptions in healthcare and rapid increases in virtual healthcare delivery. The full effects of these shifts remain unknown. Understanding effects of these disruptions is particularly relevant for patients with chronic pain, which typically requires consistent engagement in treatment to maximize benefit, and for Black patients, given documented racial disparities in pain treatment and telehealth delivery.

OBJECTIVE

To understand how Black patients with chronic pain experienced pandemic-related changes in healthcare delivery.

DESIGN

In-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews PARTICIPANTS: Black veterans with chronic pain.

KEY RESULTS

Participants described decreased ability to self-manage their chronic pain, obtain nonpharmacological services such as physical therapy, see their primary care providers, and schedule surgery. Most did not believe telehealth met their needs, describing feeling inadequately assessed for their pain and noting that beyond renewing prescriptions, telehealth visits were not that useful. Some believed their communication with their providers suffered from a lack of in-person contact. Others, however, were willing to accept this tradeoff to prevent possible exposure to COVID-19, and some appreciated the convenience of being able to access healthcare from home.

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients with chronic pain described mostly negative effects from the shift to telecare after the pandemic's onset. Given existing disparities and likely persistence of virtual care, research on the longer-term effects of virtual pain care for Black patients is needed.

Characterizing modifications to a comparative effectiveness research study: the OPTIMIZE trial-using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Interventions (FRAME)

BACKGROUND

The OPTIMIZE trial is a multi-site, comparative effectiveness research (CER) study that uses a Sequential Multiple Assessment Randomized Trial (SMART) designed to examine the effectiveness of complex health interventions (cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and mindfulness) for adults with chronic low back pain. Modifications are anticipated when implementing complex interventions in CER. Disruptions due to COVID have created unanticipated challenges also requiring modifications. Recent methodologic standards for CER studies emphasize that fully characterizing modifications made is necessary to interpret and implement trial results. The purpose of this paper is to outline the modifications made to the OPTIMIZE trial using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Interventions (FRAME) to characterize modifications to the OPTIMIZE trial in response to the COVID pandemic and other challenges encountered.

METHODS

The FRAME outlines a strategy to identify and report modifications to evidence-based interventions or implementation strategies, whether planned or unplanned. We use the FRAME to characterize the process used to modify the aspects of the OPTIMIZE trial. Modifications were made to improve lower-than-anticipated rates of treatment initiation and COVID-related restrictions. Contextual modifications were made to permit telehealth delivery of treatments originally designed for in-person delivery. Training modifications were made with study personnel to provide more detailed information to potential participants, use motivational interviewing communication techniques to clarify potential participants' motivation and possible barriers to initiating treatment, and provide greater assistance with scheduling of assigned treatments.

RESULTS

Modifications were developed with input from the trial's patient and stakeholder advisory panels. The goals of the modifications were to improve trial feasibility without compromising the interventions' core functions. Modifications were approved by the study funder and the trial steering committee.

CONCLUSIONS

Full and transparent reporting of modifications to clinical trials, whether planned or unplanned, is critical for interpreting the trial's eventual results and considering future implementation efforts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03859713. Registered on March 1, 2019.

Perspectives on Participation in Clinical Trials Among Individuals With Pain, Depression, and/or Anxiety: An ACTTION Scoping Review

For individuals experiencing pain, the decision to engage in clinical trials may be influenced by a number of factors including current and past care, illness severity, physical functioning, financial stress, and caregiver support. Co-occurring depression and anxiety may add to these challenges. The aim of this scoping review was to describe perspectives about clinical trial participation, including recruitment and retention among individuals with pain and pain comorbidities, including depression and/or anxiety. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Study features, sample demographics, perspectives, barriers and/or motivations were collected and described. A total of 35 assessments were included in this scoping review with 24 focused on individuals with pain (24/35, 68.6%), 9 on individuals with depression and/or anxiety (9/35, 25.7%), and 2 on individuals with pain and co-occurring depression/anxiety (2/35, 5.7%). Barriers among participants with pain and those with depression included: research team's communication of information, fear of interventional risks, distrust (only among respondents with pain), too many procedures, fear of inadequate treatment, disease-life stressors, and embarrassment with study procedures (more commonly reported in participants with depression). Facilitators in both groups included: altruism and supportive staff, better access to care, and the ability to have outcome feedback (more commonly among individuals with depression). Individuals with pain and depression experience challenges that affect trial recruitment and retention. Engaging individuals with pain within research planning may assist in addressing these barriers and the needs of individuals affected by pain and/or depression. PERSPECTIVE: This review highlights the need to address barriers and facilitators to participation in clinical trials, including the need for an assessment of perspectives from underserved or marginalized populations.

Community-based pain programs commissioned by primary health networks: key findings from an online survey and consultation with program managers

OBJECTIVE

There is an increasing demand for tertiary pain services, with long waiting times compounded by limited reach to regional and remote areas. Community-based pain programs are a feasible evidence-based model of care to improve access to multidisciplinary care. Australian primary health networks (PHNs) are well placed to commission pain programs to reduce the growing burden of chronic pain. The aim of this study was to support PHN decision-making by: (1) describing current PHN community-based pain programs; (2) assessing their alignment to key elements and implementation enablers of pain programs identified by an expert consensus process; and (3) describing PHN pain program adaptations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

PHN program managers of community-based pain programs (n  = 9) were invited to participate in an online survey and follow-up email consultation about their pain program. Six PHN program managers (representing South Eastern NSW PHN, Nepean Blue Mountains PHN, North Western Melbourne PHN, Gold Coast PHN, Adelaide PHN and the WA Primary Health Alliance) participated in the study with three PHNs commissioning two different types of pain programs.

RESULTS

PHN community-based pain programs are multidisciplinary programs underpinned by a biopsychosocial model of pain, and focus on self-management (e.g. exercise, psychological strategies) and pain education. Most PHN pain programs are group-based programs that target adults with chronic non-cancer pain, provide individual allied health referrals as required and are evaluated as part of the electronic Persistent Pain Outcomes Collaboration. Gaps include pain programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, with one notable exception of a PHN pain program for people from culturally and linguistically diverse and refugee backgrounds co-designed with consumers and relevant services. Programs targeting subacute pain to prevent progression to chronic pain are, with one exception, another gap area. PHN pain programs demonstrated a high level of alignment with expert-agreed key elements and implementation enablers. The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated the rapid adaptation of PHN pain programs using available methods for the delivery of digitally enabled care.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide a greater understanding for researchers and PHN decision-makers of the key features of PHN community-based pain programs, their alignment with expert-agreed key elements and implementation enablers, the target-population gaps, and the types of program adaptations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings also illustrate the potential for using digitally enabled delivery methods to increase accessibility to pain programs with further research warranted.

TIDieR-telehealth: precision in reporting of telehealth interventions used in clinical trials - unique considerations for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist

Background

Recent international health events have led to an increased proliferation of remotely delivered health interventions. Even with the pandemic seemingly coming under control, the experiences of the past year have fueled a growth in ideas and technology for increasing the scope of remote care delivery. Unfortunately, clinicians and health systems will have difficulty with the adoption and implementation of these interventions if ongoing and future clinical trials fail to report necessary details about execution, platforms, and infrastructure related to these interventions. The purpose was to develop guidance for reporting of telehealth interventions.

Methods

A working group from the US Pain Management Collaboratory developed guidance for complete reporting of telehealth interventions. The process went through 5-step process from conception to final checklist development with input for many stakeholders, to include all 11 primary investigators with trials in the Collaboratory.

Results

An extension focused on unique considerations relevant to telehealth interventions was developed for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

Conclusion

The Telehealth Intervention guideline encourages use of the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist as a valuable tool (TIDieR-Telehealth) to improve the quality of research through a reporting guide of relevant interventions that will help maximize reproducibility and implementation.

Experiences of Pediatric Pain Professionals Providing Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study

Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 youth, many of whom manage their pain using a biopsychosocial approach. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the way that healthcare is delivered. As part of a larger program of research, this study aimed to understand the impact of the pandemic on pediatric chronic pain care delivery including impact on patients’ outcomes, from the perspective of pediatric healthcare providers. A qualitative descriptive study design was used and 21 healthcare providers from various professional roles, clinical settings, and geographic locations across Canada were interviewed. Using a reflexive thematic analysis approach 3 themes were developed: (1) duality of pandemic impact on youth with chronic pain (i.e., how the pandemic influenced self-management while also exacerbating existing socioeconomic inequalities); (2) changes to the healthcare system and clinical practices (i.e., triaging and access to care); (3) shift to virtual care (i.e., role of institutions and hybrid models of care). These findings outline provider perspectives on the positive and negative impacts of the pandemic on youth with chronic pain and highlight the role of socioeconomic status and access to care in relation to chronic pain management during the pandemic in a high-income country with a publicly funded healthcare system.

A Primary Care-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Intervention for Long-Term Opioid Users With Chronic Pain : A Randomized Pragmatic Trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common, disabling, and costly. Few clinical trials have examined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions embedded in primary care settings to improve chronic pain among those receiving long-term opioid therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of a group-based CBT intervention for chronic pain.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02113592).

SETTING

Kaiser Permanente health care systems in Georgia, Hawaii, and the Northwest.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed chronic pain conditions receiving long-term opioid therapy.

INTERVENTION

A CBT intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorist, nurse, physical therapist, and pharmacist) versus usual care.

MEASUREMENTS

Self-reported pain impact (primary outcome, as measured by the PEGS scale [pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life, general activity, and sleep]) was assessed quarterly over 12 months. Pain-related disability, satisfaction with care, and opioid and benzodiazepine use based on electronic health care data were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 850 patients participated, representing 106 clusters of primary care providers (mean age, 60.3 years; 67.4% women); 816 (96.0%) completed follow-up assessments. Intervention patients sustained larger reductions on all self-reported outcomes from baseline to 12-month follow-up; the change in PEGS score was -0.434 point (95% CI, -0.690 to -0.178 point) for pain impact, and the change in pain-related disability was -0.060 point (CI, -0.084 to -0.035 point). At 6 months, intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with primary care (difference, 0.230 point [CI, 0.053 to 0.406 point]) and pain services (difference, 0.336 point [CI, 0.129 to 0.543 point]). Benzodiazepine use decreased more in the intervention group (absolute risk difference, -0.055 [CI, -0.099 to -0.011]), but opioid use did not differ significantly between groups.

LIMITATION

The inclusion of only patients with insurance in large integrated health care systems limited generalizability, and the clinical effect of change in scores is unclear.

CONCLUSION

Primary care-based CBT, using frontline clinicians, produced modest but sustained reductions in measures of pain and pain-related disability compared with usual care but did not reduce use of opioid medication.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pragmatic clinical trial participants

Characterizing the impacts of disruption attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research is important, especially in pain research where psychological, social, and economic stressors attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic may greatly impact treatment effects. The National Institutes of Health - Department of Defense - Department of Veterans Affairs Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) is a collective effort supporting 11 pragmatic clinical trials studying nonpharmacological approaches and innovative integrated care models for pain management in veteran and military health systems. The PMC rapidly developed a brief pandemic impacts measure for use across its pragmatic trials studying pain while remaining broadly applicable to other areas of clinical research. Through open discussion and consensus building by the PMC's Phenotypes and Outcomes Work Group, the PMC Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) Measure was iteratively developed. The measure assesses the following domains (one item/domain): access to healthcare, social support, finances, ability to meet basic needs, and mental or emotional health. Two additional items assess infection status (personal and household) and hospitalization. The measure uses structured responses with a three-point scale for COVID-19 infection status and four-point ordinal rank response for all other domains. We recommend individualized adaptation as appropriate by clinical research teams using this measure to survey the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on study participants. This can also help maintain utility of the measure beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to characterize impacts during future public health emergencies that may require mitigation strategies such as periods of quarantine and isolation.

Optimizing the Impact of Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Veteran and Military Populations: Lessons From the Pain Management Collaboratory

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are well-suited to address unmet healthcare needs, such as those arising from the dual public health crises of chronic pain and opioid misuse, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These overlapping epidemics have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and PCTs can be used to investigate the effectiveness of integrated therapies that are currently available but underused. Yet individual pragmatic studies can be limited in their reach because of existing structural and cultural barriers to dissemination and implementation. The National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans Affairs formed an interagency research partnership, the Pain Management Collaboratory. The partnership combines pragmatic trial design with collaborative tools and relationship building within a large network to advance the science and impact of nonpharmacological approaches and integrated models of care for the management of pain and common co-occurring conditions. The Pain Management Collaboratory team supports 11 large-scale, multisite PCTs in veteran and military health systems with a focus on team science with the shared aim that the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts." Herein, we describe this integrated approach and lessons learned, including incentivizing all parties; proactively offering frequent opportunities for problem-solving; engaging stakeholders during all stages of research; and navigating competing research priorities. We also articulate several specific strategies and their practical implications for advancing pain management in active clinical, "real-world," settings.

Perceptions of Telehealth Physical Therapy Among Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 prompted the rapid adoption of telehealth to provide physical therapy. Patients' perceptions about telehealth physical therapy are mostly unknown. This study describes perceptions of telehealth physical therapy among patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Methods: This study surveyed participants in an ongoing multisite clinical trial of nonpharmacological LBP treatments. Participants were asked about their willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy and with other providers and completed the PROMIS-29. Results: Surveys were received from 102 participants (mean age = 48.5 [standard deviation; SD = 11.6]). Thirty-six (35.3%) expressed willingness to receive telehealth physical therapy, 22 were neutral (21.6%), and 44 were unwilling (43.1%). The percentage expressing willingness for telehealth physical therapy was lower than it was for family medicine (p < 0.001) or mental health (p < 0.001). Older (p = 0.049) and Black participants (p = 0.01) more likely expressed willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy. Conclusion: Education and familiarity may help patients view telehealth physical therapy more favorably. Clinical Trial Registration (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03859713).

Justice and equity in pragmatic clinical trials: Considerations for pain research within integrated health systems

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions