Search

BACKGROUND: Although studies have documented higher rates of chronic pain among women Veterans compared to men Veterans, there remains a lack of comprehensive information about potential contributors to these disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study examined gender differences in chronic pain and its contributors among 419 men and 392 women Veterans, enrolled in a mindfulness trial for chronic pain. We conducted descriptive analyses summarizing distributions of baseline measures, obtained by survey and through the electronic health record. Comparisons between genders were conducted using chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous measures. RESULTS: Compared to men, women Veterans were more likely to have chronic overlapping pain conditions and had higher levels of pain interference and intensity. Women had higher prevalence of psychiatric and sleep disorder diagnoses, greater levels of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, fatigue, sleep disturbance, stress and pain catastrophizing, and lower levels of pain self-efficacy and participation in social roles and activities. However, women were less likely to smoke or have a substance abuse disorder and used more nonpharmacological pain treatment modalities. CONCLUSION: Among Veterans seeking treatment for chronic pain, women differed from men in their type of pain, had greater pain intensity and interference, and had greater prevalence and higher levels of many known biopsychosocial contributors to pain. Results point to the need for pain treatment that addresses the comprehensive needs of women Veterans. UNLABELLED: Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT04526158. Patient enrollment began on December 4, 2020.

BackgroundMindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are evidence-based nonpharmacological treatments for treating chronic pain. However, the predominant MBI, mindfulness-based stress reduction, has features that pose significant implementation barriers.ObjectivesThis study will test two approaches to delivering MBIs for improving Veterans' chronic pain and mental health comorbidities. These two approaches address key implementation barriers.MethodsWe will conduct a four-site, three-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial, Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP), to test the effectiveness of two MBIs at improving pain and mental health comorbidities. Mobile+Group LAMP consists of prerecorded modules presented by a mindfulness instructor that are viewed in an online group setting and interspersed with discussions led by a facilitator. Mobile LAMP consists of the same prerecorded modules but does not include a group component. We will test whether either of these MBIs will be more effective than usual care at improving chronic pain and whether the Mobile+Group LAMP will be more effective than Mobile LAMP at improving chronic pain. Comparisons for the primary hypotheses will be conducted with continuous outcomes (Brief Pain Inventory interference score) repeated at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The secondary hypotheses are that Mobile+Group LAMP and Mobile LAMP will be more effective than usual care at improving secondary outcomes (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, depression). We will also confirm the comparisons for the primary and secondary hypotheses in gender-specific strata.ImplicationsThis trial is expected to result in two approaches for delivering MBIs that will optimize engagement, adherence, and sustainability and be able to reach large numbers of Veterans.

BackgroundThe Whole Health model of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) emphasizes holistic self-care and multimodal approaches to improve pain, functioning, and quality of life. wHOPE (Whole Health Options and Pain Education) seeks to be the first multisite pragmatic trial to establish evidence for the VA Whole Health model for chronic pain care.DesignwHOPE is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing a Whole Health Team (WHT) approach to Primary Care Group Education (PC-GE); both will be compared to Usual VA Primary Care (UPC). The WHT consists of a medical provider, a complementary and integrative health (CIH) provider, and a Whole Health coach, who collaborate with VA patients to create a Personalized Health Plan emphasizing CIH approaches to chronic pain management. The active comparator, PC-GE, is adapted group cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain. The first aim is to test whether the WHT approach is superior to PC-GE and whether both are superior to UPC in decreasing pain interference in functioning in 750 veterans with moderate to severe chronic pain (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include changes in pain severity, quality of life, mental health symptoms, and use of nonpharmacological and pharmacological therapies for pain. Outcomes will be collected from the VA electronic health record and patient-reported data over 12 months of follow-up. Aim 2 consists of an implementation-focused process evaluation and budget impact analysis.SummaryThis trial is part of the Pain Management Collaboratory, which seeks to create national-level infrastructure to support evidence-based nonpharmacological pain management approaches for veterans and military service personnel.

ObjectiveProductive patient-clinician communication is an important component of effective pain management, but we know little about how patients and clinicians actually talk about pain in clinical settings and how it might be improved to produce better patient outcomes. The objective of this review was to create a conceptual model of patient-clinician communication about noncancer pain, review and synthesize empirical research in this area, and identify priorities for future research.MethodsA conceptual model was developed that drew on existing pain and health communication research. CINAHL, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched to find studies reporting empirical data on patient-clinician communication about noncancer pain; results were supplemented with manual searches. Studies were categorized and analyzed to identify crosscutting themes and inform model development.ResultsThe conceptual model comprised the following components: contextual factors, clinical interaction, attitudes and beliefs, and outcomes. Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria and were analyzed based on model components. Studies varied widely in quality, methodology, and sample size. Two provisional conclusions were identified: contrary to what is often reported in the literature, discussions about analgesics are most frequently characterized by patient-clinician agreement, and self-presentation during patient-clinician interactions plays an important role in communication about pain and opioids.ConclusionsPublished studies on patient-clinician communication about noncancer pain are few and diverse. The conceptual model presented here can help to identify knowledge gaps and guide future research on communication about pain. Investigating the links between communication and pain-related outcomes is an important priority for future research.

ObjectiveTo describe the development and initial application of the Chronic Pain Coding System.DesignSecondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial.SettingSix primary care clinics in northern California.SubjectsForty-five primary care visits involving 33 clinicians and 45 patients on opioids for chronic noncancer pain.MethodsThe authors developed a structured coding system to accurately and objectively characterize discussions about pain and opioids. Two coders applied the final system to visit transcripts. Intercoder agreement for major coding categories was moderate to substantial (kappa = 0.5-0.7). Mixed effects regression was used to test six hypotheses to assess preliminary construct validity.ResultsGreater baseline pain interference was associated with longer pain discussions (P = 0.007) and more patient requests for clinician action (P = 0.02) but not more frequent negative patient evaluations of pain (P = 0.15). Greater clinician-reported visit difficulty was associated with more frequent disagreements with clinician recommendations (P = 0.003) and longer discussions of opioid risks (P = 0.049) but not more frequent requests for clinician action (P = 0.11). Rates of agreement versus disagreement with patient requests and clinician recommendations were similar for opioid-related and non-opioid-related utterances.ConclusionsThis coding system appears to be a reliable and valid tool for characterizing patient-clinician communication about opioids and chronic pain during clinic visits. Objective data on how patients and clinicians discuss chronic pain and opioids are necessary to identify communication patterns and strategies for improving the quality and productivity of discussions about chronic pain that may lead to more effective pain management and reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing.

Racialized disparities in chronic pain care are well-documented and persist despite national priorities focused on health equity. Similar disparities have been observed in patient activation (ie, having the knowledge, confidence, and skills to manage one's health). As such, interventions targeting patient activation represent a novel approach to addressing and reducing disparities in pain care. Communication and Activation in Pain to Enhance Relationships and Treat Pain with Equity is a randomized controlled trial of a 6-session telephone-delivered intervention to increase patient activation for Black patients with chronic pain. Two hundred fifty Black patients from a Midwestern Veterans Affairs medical center were randomized to the intervention or attention control. The primary outcome was patient activation; secondary outcomes included communication self-efficacy, pain, and psychological functioning. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3 (primary endpoint), 6, and 9 months (sustained effects). Analyses used an intent-to-treat approach. Compared with baseline, patient activation increased 4.6 points at 3 months (versus 10.13 in control group, 95% CI: 0.48, 7.34; P 5 0.03). These improvements in the intervention group were sustained, with 17 from baseline at 6 months and15.77 at 9 months, and remained statistically significant from the control group. Communication self-efficacy increased significantly relative to the control group from baseline to 3 months. Pain intensity and interference improved at 3 months, but differences were not significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Most other secondary outcomes improved, but group differences were not statistically significant after controlling for multiple comparisons. Results suggest that increasing patient activation is a potentially fruitful path toward improving pain management and achieving health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]