Search

Background: Behavioural activation (BA) is an effective treatment for depression; however, it is unclear if it can be used to manage pain., Objectives: To conduct a scoping review of primary research that reported using BA to support people living with chronic pain to understand how BA had been used in relation to pain. In addition, we wanted to understand whether there were any reported changes in that pain, and how and who delivered BA., Eligibility Criteria: Primary research published in English., Sources of Evidence: We searched seven databases MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science, for primary research. No initial date limit was used with the date the searches were conducted used as the end date limit (1 July 2021)., Charting Methods: A customised data extraction table was developed, piloted and used., Results: 551 papers were screened for inclusion, with 15 papers included in our review. Studies were conducted in North America and in Canada. These included three case studies, nine uncontrolled trials and three randomised controlled trials. Only two studies reported pain as the primary outcome. BA was applied across a range of pain related conditions. The dose of BA ranged from 3 to 16 sessions. Duration of treatment was 3 weeks to 12 months. Most studies reported reductions in pain following exposure to BA., Conclusion: BA has the potential to reduce pain. Caution needs to be exercised in the interpretation of these findings as a high risk of bias was observed in most studies. High-quality research is required to test if BA is an effective intervention for chronic pain., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GLM has received support from: Reality Health, ConnectHealth UK, Seqirus, Kaiser Permanente, Workers’ Compensation Boards in Australia, Europe and North America, AIA Australia, the International Olympic Committee, Port Adelaide Football Club, Arsenal Football Club, all for work related to pain and performance management. Professional and scientific bodies have reimbursed him for travel costs related to presentation of research on pain at scientific conferences and symposia. He has received speaker fees for lectures on pain and rehabilitation. He receives book royalties from NOIgroup publications, Dancing Giraffe Press & OPTP, for books on pain science, education and rehabilitation., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is under debate. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC)., Methods: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment., Results: The European Clinical Practice Recommendations give guidance for combination with other medications, the management of frequent (e.g. nausea, constipation) and rare (e.g. hyperalgesia) side effects, for special clinical populations (e.g. children and adolescents, pregnancy) and for special situations (e.g. liver cirrhosis)., Conclusion: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively., Significance: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. A collaboration of medical specialties and of all health care professionals is needed for some special populations and clinical situations., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.)

Background: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC)., Methods: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment., Results: The key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation., Conclusions: Opioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance., Significance: In chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.)

Background: This study reports on physicians’ experiences with chronic pain management. For over a decade prescription opioids have been a primary treatment for chronic pain in North America. However, the current opioid epidemic has complicated long-standing practices for chronic pain management which historically involved prescribing pain medication. Caring for patients with chronic pain occurs within a context in which a growing proportion of patients suffer from chronic rather than acute conditions alongside rising social inequities. Methods: Our team undertook an ethnographic approach known as institutional ethnography in the province of Ontario, Canada in order to explore the social organization of chronic pain management from the standpoint of primary care physicians. This paper reports on a subset of this study data, specifically interviews with 19 primary care clinicians and 8 nurses supplemented by 40 hours of observations. The clinicians in our sample were largely primary care physicians and nurses working in urban, rural and Northern settings. Findings: In their reflections on providing care for patients with chronic pain, many providers describe being most challenged by the work involved in helping patients who also struggled with poverty, mental health and addiction. These frustrations were often complicated by concerns that they could lose their license for inappropriate prescribing, thus shifting their work from providing treatment and care to policing their patients for malingering and opioid abuse. Interpretation: Our findings show that care providers find the treatment of patients with chronic pain–especially those patients also experiencing poverty–to be challenging at best, and at worst frustrating and overwhelming. In many instances, their narratives suggested experiences of depersonalization, loss of job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion in relation to providing care for these patients, key dimensions of burnout. In essence, the work that they performed in relation to their patients’ social rather than medical needs seems to contribute to these experiences. Their experiences were further exacerbated by the fact that restricting and reducing opioid dosing in patients with chronic pain has become a major focus of care provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Critical attention to rational opioid prescribing has emerged from the opioid epidemic in North America. Individuals with chronic pain are prescribed extended release opioids in an effort to maintain stable drug levels and for more convenient dosing, though evidence to support improvements in pain or function is lacking. It has been observed that extended release opioid products are used at intervals shorter than recommended by product monographs. The need for shortened intervals has been linked with potential inter-patient variability in pharmacokinetics, among other rationale. Implications of shortened dosing intervals for extended release opioids have not been systematically studied. Objective The aim of this study was to characterize the use of extended release opioid formulations at shortened dosing intervals in a population of patients with chronic pain and high risk for opioid-related harms. Setting This study took place in the Interprofessional Pain and Addiction Recovery Clinic, a specialty ambulatory clinic at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada for adults with chronic pain and a diagnosis or suspicion of substance use disorder. Method This was a retrospective cross-sectional study. Data were collected from records of patients with assessments completed in the years 2012-2017 (n = 210). Main outcome measure Proportion of patients using extended release opioids at shortened intervals. Results Sixty-one percent of individuals using extended release opioids (n = 78) were using them at shortened intervals. This use was associated with a higher daily morphine equivalent dose (533 mg vs 236 mg, p < 0.01), use of oxycodone extended release products (50% vs. 27%, p < 0.01), a longer duration of opioid therapy (8.9 vs. 6.8 years, p = 0.03) and a diagnosis of chronic neuropathic pain (63% vs. 39%, p < 0.01), with no differences in reported pain intensities, compared with use at standard intervals. Conclusion The use of extended release opioids at shortened intervals was associated with increased daily morphine equivalent doses, thus an increased risk of opioid-related mortality. It is unlikely that of those using extended release opioids, the high proportion of use at shortened intervals is the result of inter-patient differences in metabolism alone. Further study is warranted to explore the underlying drivers and implications for people with chronic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]