Not really nice: a commentary on the recent version of NICE guidelines [NG193: chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16s: assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary pain] by the Pain Net

The Web-Based Pain-at-Work Toolkit With Telephone Support for Employees With Chronic or Persistent Pain: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Feasibility Trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic or persistent pain affects one's ability to work or be productive at work, generating high societal and economic burden. However, the provision of work-related advice and support for people with chronic pain is variable or lacking. The Pain-at-Work (PAW) Toolkit was cocreated with people who live with pain, health care professionals, and employers. It aims to increase knowledge about employee rights and how to access support for managing a painful chronic condition in the workplace and provides advice on lifestyle behaviors that facilitate the management of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to establish the feasibility of conducting a definitive cluster randomized controlled trial comparing access to the PAW Toolkit and telephone support calls from an occupational therapist (PAW) with treatment as usual (ie, standard support from their employer). Our primary outcomes are establishing parameters of feasibility, acceptability, usability, and safety of this digital workplace health intervention. We will assess the candidate primary and secondary outcomes' feasibility and test research processes for a definitive trial.

METHODS

This is an open-label, parallel 2-arm pragmatic feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial with exploratory health economics analysis and a nested qualitative interview study. We aim to recruit 120 participants from at least 8 workplace clusters (any type, >10 employees) in England. The recruitment of workplaces occurs via personal approach, and the recruitment of individual participants is web based. Eligible participants are vocationally active adults aged ≥18 years with internet access and self-reporting chronic pain interfering with their ability to undertake or enjoy productive work. A restricted 1:1 cluster-level randomization is used to allocate employment settings to PAW or treatment as usual; participants are unblinded to group allocation. Following site- and individual-level consent, participants complete a web-based baseline survey (time 0), including measures of work capacity, health and well-being, and health care resource use. Follow-up is performed at 3 months (time 1) and 6 months (time 2). Feasibility outcomes relate to recruitment; intervention fidelity (eg, delivery, reach, uptake, and engagement); retention; and follow-up. Qualitative evaluation (time 2) is mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior model and will explore intervention acceptability to employees and employers, along with individual and contextual factors influencing the delivery and uptake of the intervention.

RESULTS

Ethics approval was obtained in March 2023. Trial recruitment began in June 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

The PAW Toolkit is the first evidence-based digital health intervention aimed at supporting the self-management of chronic or persistent pain at work. This study will inform the design of a definitive trial, including sample size estimation, approaches to cluster site identification, primary and secondary outcomes' selection, and the final health economic model. Findings will inform approaches for the future delivery of this digital health intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05838677; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05838677.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/51474.

Making chronic pain count: empirical support for the ICD-11 classification of chronic pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose is to review the evidence that has been collected with regard to the new classification of chronic pain. In 2022, the World Health Assembly endorsed the 11 th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), and with it a new classification of chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

The evidence from the formative field testing indicated that the categories were clearly delineated and the coverage of chronic pain excellent (<3% in remainder categories). Official WHO field tests showed that the classification works well within the technical parameters WHO classifications must conform to and outperformed the ICD-10 diagnoses in all respects. International field tests, in which clinicians diagnosed consecutive patients in settings of medium and high resources, showed substantial interrater reliability (κ = 0.596 to κ = 0.783) for the diagnoses and the clinicians rated their clinical utility as very high. Studies using complete hospital records demonstrated that with the information they contain, retrospective coding of the new diagnoses is possible and provides much more meaningful information than the ICD-10 diagnoses.

SUMMARY

The evidence supports the use of the new classification and highlights its informational gains - using it will contribute to making chronic pain count in many contexts.

Content and Quality of Mobile Apps for the Monitoring of Musculoskeletal or Neuropathic Pain in Australia: Systematic Evaluation

Background

Mobile apps offer a potential mechanism for people with persistent pain to monitor pain levels conveniently within their own environment and for clinicians to remotely monitor their patients' pain. However, the quality of currently available apps and the usefulness of included features from a clinical perspective are not known.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the content and quality of currently available smartphone apps designed for monitoring the intensity or presence of musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in the Australian Apple and Google Play stores. Apps were included if they were designed to monitor the intensity or presence of musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain and were available in the English language within the Australian app stores. Data pertaining to the intended use of the app and clinical population were extracted by using a custom-designed data extraction form, and app quality was assessed by using the 23-item Mobile App Rating Scale.

Results

Of the 2190 apps screened, 49 met the inclusion criteria. Apps were primarily designed for adult users (36/49, 73%) with nonspecific musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain conditions, arthritis, and joint pain. All apps monitored pain intensity, with almost half (23/49, 47%) also specifying pain location. Overall, the mean quality scores from the Mobile App Rating Scale ranged from 1.5 to 4.4 (out of 5.0). Between 20% (10/49) and 22% (11/49) of apps involved clinicians, consumers, or both in their development, and 20% (10/49) had published literature related to the development or use of the app in clinical scenarios. Although 71% (35/49) had data sharing features, only 5 apps enabled client-clinician communication through the app.

Conclusions

The overall quality of mobile apps that are currently available for monitoring pain intensity is acceptable. Presently, mobile apps for remote pain monitoring lack functionality for clinicians to view data between consults. Both users and clinicians should be aware of the limitations of these apps and make informed choices in using or recommending apps that best suit the clinical need.

Diagnosis and treatment of meralgia paresthetica between 2005 and 2018: a national cohort study

The prevalence of meralgia paresthetica (MP), which is caused by compression of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN), has been increasing over recent decades. Since guidelines and large-scale studies are lacking, there are substantial regional differences in diagnostics and management in MP care. Our study aims to report on current diagnostic and therapeutic strategies as well as time trends in clinical MP management in Germany. Patients hospitalized in Germany between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, with MP as their primary diagnosis were identified using the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) code G57.1 and standardized operations and procedures codes (OPS). A total of 5828 patients with MP were included. The rate of imaging studies increased from 44% in 2005 to 79% in 2018 (p < 0.001) and that of non-imaging diagnostic studies from 70 to 93% (p < 0.001). Among non-imaging diagnostics, the rates of evoked potentials and neurography increased from 20%/16% in 2005 to 36%/23% in 2018 (p < 0.001, respectively). Rates of surgical procedures for MP decreased from 53 to 37% (p < 0.001), while rates of non-surgical procedures increased from 23 to 30% (p < 0.001). The most frequent surgical interventions were decompressive procedures at a mean annual rate of 29% (± 5) throughout the study period, compared to a mean annual rate of 5% (± 2) for nerve transection procedures. Between 2005 and 2018, in-hospital MP care in Germany underwent significant changes. The rates of imaging, evoked potentials, neurography, and non-surgical management increased. The decompression of the LFCN was substantially more frequent than that of the LFCN transection, yet both types of intervention showed a substantial decrease in in-hospital prevalence over time.

Assessment of suitable referral, effectiveness and long-term outcomes of standard vs intensive pain management programmes for people with chronic pain

Background

Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability, often requiring multidisciplinary management. 2021 NICE guidance has questioned the quality of the evidence surrounding the efficacy of pain management programmes (PMPs), with only minor benefit demonstrated in psychological and physical outcomes. There is need for further high-quality evidence for the efficacy of PMPs for a range of chronic pain conditions and to identify barriers to successful management of chronic pain.

Objective

This service evaluation utilised routinely collected outcome data of 508 PMP attendees to investigate change in pain- and patient-related outcomes across two distinct PMPs; a standard and an intensive PMP, and establish their longer-term efficacy and appropriateness for patients with differing degrees of need.

Results

More people with chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis were referred to the intensive PMP (reflecting greater disability and distress in these conditions). Those referred to the intensive PMP demonstrated greater distress (such as more severe depression and anxiety), lower pain acceptance and poorer physical function. Improvements were observed in all outcomes across both PMPs (including physical function, pain catastrophising and pain acceptance). Depression and disability demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in the intensive PMP, and pain severity showed clinically meaningful improvement in both PMPs. However, depression severity, disability, pain severity, and pain interference significantly deteriorated at 6-month follow-up for those on the intensive PMP, with pain severity increasing to a clinically meaningful degree (by more than 10%), though these outcomes remained better than at baseline.

Conclusion

This evaluation identified that people with chronic pain most at risk of deterioration in physical and psychological wellbeing after completing a PMP require early identification to mitigate such deterioration. Established and emerging PMPs need to be tailored to the needs of this group, particularly at follow-up to reduce risks of pain severity increasing, alongside establishing/reinforcing safeguards against deterioration post-PMP.

Caring for adults with hip pain

This article discusses the pathophysiology, assessment techniques, and management of hip pain in adults and the role of nurses in caring for patients with hip pain.

Mental disorders are no predictors to determine the duration of cannabis-based treatment for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain (CP), a complex biopsychosocial disorder with a global prevalence of up to 33%, can be treated by following multidisciplinary approaches that may include cannabis-based medicine (CBM). However, because CBM continues to be a new treatment, questions remain regarding the ideal duration for CBM and its psychosocial determinants, including mental comorbidities.

METHODS

In a retrospective cross-sectional study involving 46 patients with CP (ICD-10 code F45.4-), three validated instruments-the German Pain Questionnaire, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS), and the Marburg Questionnaire of Habitual WellBeing-were used to identify pain-specific psychosocial determinants and mental disorders. Descriptive analyses, a group differences analysis, and a logistic regression analysis were performed using SPSS.

RESULTS

The patients most frequently reported low back pain as the primary location of their CP, and in attributing the condition to tissue damage, most had largely adopted a somatic orientation in conceptualizing their illness. Most had experienced CP for more than 5 years (M = 5.13 years, SD = 1.41) and, as a consequence, faced significant restrictions in their everyday life and exhibited low subjective wellbeing (MFHW median = 4.00, N = 43, Q1: 2.00, Q3: 9.00, range: 0-20). Comorbidities among the patients included depression, (DASS-Depression, median: 11.50, Q1: 7.00, Q3: 16.25), anxiety (DASS-Anxiety, median: 4.50, Q1: 2.75, Q3: 8.00), and stress (DASS-Stress, median: 11.00, Q1: 7.00, Q3: 15.00). Between the two cannabis-based treatments with a course lasting either less or more than a year, the duration of treatment showed no between-group differences in terms of sociodemographic factors, pain-specific factors, conceptualizations of the illness, or mental disorders. Psychosocial determinants such as subjective wellbeing and mental comorbidities were not significant predictors of the duration of cannabis-based treatment.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence indicating that the benefits of short-term vs. long-term cannabis-based treatment can be predicted by mental comorbidities or psychosocial factors. However, because CBM may be included in approaches to treat CP, questions about the ideal duration of such treatment remain to be answered.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Biopsychosocial Pain Education upon Health Care Professional Pain Attitudes, Knowledge, Behavior and Patient Outcomes

Pain is a significant health burden globally and its management frequently fails to comply with evidence based, biopsychosocial guidelines. This may be partly attributable to inadequate biopsychosocial focussed pain education for students and clinicians. We aimed to undertake a systematic review, using Cochrane methodology, of randomized controlled trials with meta-analysis to quantify the effects of biopsychosocial education strategies in changing student/qualified health care professionals (HCPs) pain related attitudes, knowledge, clinical behaviour or patient outcomes. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken using CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Central Library, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Rehabdata, SportDiscus, EMBASE, ASSIA, Dentistry and Oral Science, Psycinfo, Education Research Complete and OpenGrey from 1977 to November 2020. Pooled effect sizes were quantified in random effects meta-analyses for attitudes, knowledge, and clinical behaviors. From a sample of 1812 records, 6 were narratively analysed and 15 were included in the meta-analyses. These studies represented 3022 patients and 3163 HCPs and students. Education improved attitudes by 11.3% (95% confidence interval: 2.2-20.4%, P = .02), and knowledge by 18.8% (12.4-25.3%, P = .01). The effects of education on clinical behavior favoured a clinically relevant improvement (OR = 2.4, 0.9-5.9, P = .06). Narrative analysis of the effect of biopsychosocial education for student HCPs/HCPs upon patient outcomes was inconclusive. These findings demonstrate that biopsychosocial focussed pain education strategies can improve student/qualified HCPs' pain related knowledge and attitudes and increase the likelihood that they will behave more in keeping with evidence-based practice. This should result in improved patient outcomes, however, evidence to support or refute this is lacking. PROSPERO systematic review record number, CRD42018082251. Perspective: We outline the effectiveness of biopsychosocial pain education for health care professionals and students in improving pain knowledge, attitudes, and evidence-based behaviors. These improvements should enhance clinical outcomes in patients with pain but further evidence is needed to confirm this.