Search

Background/aimsWhen participants in individually randomized group treatment trials are treated by multiple clinicians or in multiple group treatment sessions throughout the trial, this induces partially nested clusters which can affect the power of a trial. We investigate this issue in the Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial, a three-arm pragmatic, individually randomized clinical trial. We evaluate whether partial clusters due to multiple visits delivered by different clinicians in the Whole Health Team arm and dynamic participant groups due to changing group leaders and/or participants across treatment sessions during treatment delivery in the Primary Care Group Education arm may impact the power of the trial. We also present a Bayesian approach to estimate the intraclass correlation coefficients.MethodsWe present statistical models for each treatment arm of Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial in which power is estimated under different intraclass correlation coefficients and mapping matrices between participants and clinicians or treatment sessions. Power calculations are based on pairwise comparisons. In practice, sample size calculations depend on estimates of the intraclass correlation coefficients at the treatment sessions and clinician levels. To accommodate such complexities, we present a Bayesian framework for the estimation of intraclass correlation coefficients under different participant-to-session and participant-to-clinician mapping scenarios. We simulated continuous outcome data based on various clinical scenarios in Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial using a range of intraclass correlation coefficients and mapping matrices and used Gibbs samplers with conjugate priors to obtain posteriors of the intraclass correlation coefficients under those different scenarios. Posterior means and medians and their biases are calculated for the intraclass correlation coefficients to evaluate the operating characteristics of the Bayesian intraclass correlation coefficient estimators.ResultsPower for Whole Health Team versus Primary Care Group Education is sensitive to the intraclass correlation coefficient in the Whole Health Team arm. In these two arms, an increased number of clinicians, more evenly distributed workload of clinicians, or more homogeneous treatment group sizes leads to increased power. Our simulation study for the intraclass correlation coefficient estimation indicates that the posterior mean intraclass correlation coefficient estimator has less bias when the true intraclass correlation coefficients are large (i.e. 0.10), but when the intraclass correlation coefficient is small (i.e. 0.01), the posterior median intraclass correlation coefficient estimator is less biased.ConclusionKnowledge of intraclass correlation coefficients and the structure of clustering are critical to the design of individually randomized group treatment trials with partially nested clusters. We demonstrate that the intraclass correlation coefficient of the Whole Health Team arm can affect power in the Whole Health Options and Pain Education trial. A Bayesian approach provides a flexible procedure for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficients under complex scenarios. More work is needed to educate the research community about the individually randomized group treatment design and encourage publication of intraclass correlation coefficients to help inform future trial designs.

BackgroundThe NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC.DesignOur collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT?SummaryOur experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

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.

BackgroundVeterans Affairs (VA) has rolled out a holistic, multicomponent Whole Health care model nationwide, yet no pragmatic trials have been conducted in real-world clinical settings to compare its effectiveness against other evidence-based approaches for chronic pain management in veterans.ObjectivesWe describe the adaptation of the first large pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the Whole Health model for chronic pain care for diverse VA clinical settings.Research designInformed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Systems implementation framework, we conducted qualitative semistructured interviews to obtain feedback on trial design from VA leadership, frontline clinicians, and veterans with chronic pain at 5 VA enrollment sites. Next, we convened in-person evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) meetings with study stakeholders (including frontline clinicians and administrators) at each site to discuss study design; review interview themes; and identify site-specific barriers, facilitators, and approaches to implementation. Ethnographic observations from EBQI meetings provided additional insight into implementation strategies.SubjectsSeventy-four veteran and VA staff stakeholders were interviewed; 71 stakeholders participated in EBQI meetings.ResultsAt each site, unique clinical contexts and varying resources for Whole Health and pain care delivery affected plans for trial implementation. We present examples of local adaptations that emerged through the formative evaluation process to facilitate implementation and yield a more pragmatic trial design.ConclusionsA systematic formative evaluation can facilitate engagement and buy-in of study stakeholders. Locally tailored pragmatic implementation strategies may improve the likelihood of successful trial execution as well as future implementation of evidence-based pain care approaches in real-world clinical settings.

BackgroundPeople living with HIV (PLWH) commonly report marijuana use for chronic pain, although there is limited empirical evidence to support its use. There is hope that marijuana may reduce prescription opioid use. Our objective was to investigate whether marijuana use among PLWH who have chronic pain is associated with changes in pain severity and prescribed opioid use (prescribed opioid initiation and discontinuation).MethodsParticipants completed self-report measures of chronic pain and marijuana use at an index visit and were followed up for 1 year in the Center for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems (CNICS). Self-reported marijuana use was the exposure variable. Outcome variables were changes in pain and initiation or discontinuation of opioids during the study period. The relationship between exposure and outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models for pain and multivariable binary logistic regression models for opioid initiation/discontinuation.ResultsOf 433 PLWH and chronic pain, 28% reported marijuana use in the past 3 months. Median pain severity at the index visit was 6.3/10 (interquartile range 4.7-8.0). Neither increases nor decreases in marijuana use were associated with changes in pain severity, and marijuana use was not associated with either lower odds of opioid initiation or higher odds of opioid discontinuation.ConclusionsWe did not find evidence that marijuana use in PLWH is associated with improved pain outcomes or reduced opioid prescribing. This suggests that caution is warranted when counseling PLWH about potential benefits of recreational or medical marijuana.

BackgroundChronic pain occurs in up to 85% of persons living with HIV and is commonly treated with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). We investigated the impact of chronic pain and LTOT on HIV outcomes.MethodsThis was prospective cohort study conducted between July 2015 and July 2016 in 5 HIV primary care clinics. Chronic pain was defined as ≥moderate pain for ≥3 months on the Brief Chronic Pain Questionnaire. Chronic pain and LTOT were assessed at an index visit. Suboptimal retention, defined as at least one "no-show" to primary care, and virologic failure were measured over the subsequent year. Multivariable logistic regression models were built for each outcome adjusting for site.ResultsAmong 2334 participants, 25% had chronic pain, 27% had suboptimal retention, 12% had virologic failure, and 19% were prescribed LTOT. Among individuals not on LTOT, chronic pain was associated with increased odds of suboptimal retention [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10 to 1.93, P = 0.009] and virologic failure (aOR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.80, P < 0.001). Among individuals with chronic pain, there was no association between LTOT and retention, but LTOT was associated with lower rates of virologic failure (aOR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.96, P = 0.03).ConclusionsChronic pain in participants not on LTOT was associated with virologic failure. This reinforces the need to identify effective chronic pain treatments for persons living with HIV and investigate their impact on HIV outcomes. The apparent protective association between LTOT and virologic failure in those with pain merits further exploration.

Objective: To determine the budget impact of implementing multidisciplinary complex pain clinics (MCPCs) for Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients living with complex chronic pain and substance use disorder comorbidities who are on risky opioid regimens. Data Sources and Study Setting: We measured implementation costs for three MCPCs over 2 years using micro‐costing methods. Intervention and downstream costs were obtained from the VA Managerial Cost Accounting System from 2 years prior to 2 years after opening of MCPCs. Study Design: Staff at the three VA sites implementing MCPCs were supported by Implementation Facilitation. The intervention cohort was patients at MCPC sites who received treatment based on their history of chronic pain and risky opioid use. Intervention costs and downstream costs were estimated with a quasi‐experimental study design using a propensity score‐weighted difference‐in‐difference approach. The healthcare utilization costs of treated patients were compared with a control group having clinically similar characteristics and undergoing the standard route of care at neighboring VA medical centers. Cancer and hospice patients were excluded. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Activity‐based costing data acquired from MCPC sites were used to estimate implementation costs. Intervention and downstream costs were extracted from VA administrative data. Principal Findings: Average Implementation Facilitation costs ranged from $380 to $640 per month for each site. Upon opening of three MCPCs, average intervention costs per patient were significantly higher than the control group at two intervention sites. Downstream costs were significantly higher at only one of three intervention sites. Site‐level differences were due to variation in inpatient costs, with some confounding likely due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. This evidence suggests that necessary start‐up investments are required to initiate MCPCs, with allocations of funds needed for implementation, intervention, and downstream costs. Conclusions: Incorporating implementation, intervention, and downstream costs in this evaluation provides a thorough budget impact analysis, which decision‐makers may use when considering whether to expand effective programming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires all residency training programs to 'provide instruction and experience in pain management if applicable for the specialty, including recognition of the [...]

Objective Buprenorphine is effective for chronic pain and safer than full-agonist opioids; however, limited education about and support for buprenorphine can result in under-prescribing in primary care and reduced access in specialty pain clinics. The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to optimize and evaluate procedures for transferring patients stable on buprenorphine for chronic pain from a specialty pain clinic back to primary care. Setting Eight primary care clinics within a Veterans Health Administration health care system. Methods A standard operating procedure for facilitated transfer of prescribing was developed after a needs assessment and was introduced during an educational session with primary care providers, and providers completed a survey assessing attitudes about buprenorphine prescribing. Success of the initiative was measured through the number of patients transferred back to primary care over the course of 18 months. Results Survey results indicated that primary care providers with previous experience prescribing buprenorphine were more likely to view buprenorphine prescribing for pain as within the scope of their practice and to endorse feeling comfortable managing a buprenorphine regimen. Providers identified systemic and educational barriers to prescribing, and they identified ongoing support from specialty pain care and primary care as a facilitator of prescribing. Metrics suggested that the standard operating procedure was generally successful in transferring and retaining eligible patients in primary care. Conclusion This quality improvement initiative suggests that a facilitated transfer procedure can be useful in increasing buprenorphine prescribing for pain in primary care. Future efforts to increase primary care provider comfort and address systemic barriers to buprenorphine prescribing are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]