Search

Chronic pain is an important and understudied comorbidity in people living with HIV (PLWH). We conducted a pilot trial of Skills TO Manage Pain (STOMP), an innovative social cognitive theory-based pain self-management intervention tailored to PLWH, to assess feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy. Eligibility criteria included being HIV+, ≥ moderate pain for ≥ 3 months and a score of ≥ 4 on the three-item PEG pain severity and interference scale. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to STOMP or a usual care comparison. Among 22 participants randomized to STOMP, median session attendance was 9/12 (75%). Of 19 STOMP participants surveyed, 13 reported being "much better" overall since beginning treatment. Brief pain inventory-total scores decreased by 2 points in the intervention group and 0.9 in the control group (p = 0.11). STOMP is feasible, acceptable, and shows preliminary evidence of efficacy and promise for a full-scale trial.

Chronic pain is an important comorbidity among individuals with HIV. Behavioral interventions are widely regarded as evidence-based, efficacious non-pharmacologic interventions for chronic pain in the general population. An accepted principle in behavioral science is that theory-based, systematically-developed behavioral interventions tailored to the unique needs of a target population are most likely to be efficacious. Our aim was to use Intervention Mapping to systematically develop a Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)-based intervention for chronic pain tailored to individuals with HIV that will improve pain intensity and pain-related functional impairment. Our Intervention Mapping process was informed by qualitative inquiry of 24 patients and seven providers in an HIV primary care clinic. The resulting intervention includes group and one-on-one sessions and peer and staff interventionists. We also developed a conceptual framework that integrates our qualitative findings with SCT-based theoretical constructs. Using this conceptual framework as a guide, our future work will investigate the intervention's impact on chronic pain outcomes, as well as our hypothesized proximal mediators of the intervention's effect.

BackgroundChronic pain is a common and disabling comorbidity in individuals living with HIV. Behavioral interventions are among the most effective and safe nonpharmacologic treatments for chronic pain. However, the success of a behavioral intervention is influenced by how well it is tailored to the target population's biological, psychological, and social context. Given well-documented psychosocial vulnerabilities among persons with HIV, it is critical to develop a behavioral intervention for chronic pain tailored to this population.ObjectiveTo use qualitative methods to investigate patient preferences for the structure and delivery of a behavioral intervention for chronic pain in individuals with HIV.MethodsInterviews and focus groups were used to elicit participant preferences. A thematic analysis approach, with an initial round of open coding, was used to develop the codebook and analyze the data.ResultsQualitative data from 12 interviews and 3 focus groups with patients living with HIV and chronic pain (total N = 24) were analyzed. Emergent themes fell into four major categories: perceived value of group sessions, incorporating peer leadership, and two key elements of how the intervention should be delivered: the HIV status of group participants and views on phone-delivered intervention content.DiscussionThis study provides a framework for the structure and delivery of a behavioral intervention for chronic pain in individuals with HIV based on patient preferences. We will use these results to design our intervention, and hope that our approach informs the work of investigators in other disciplines who seek to incorporate patient preferences during intervention development.

Background: Chronic pain is common and challenging to treat. Although cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is efficacious, its benefit in disadvantaged populations is largely unknown.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of literacy-adapted and simplified group CBT versus group pain education (EDU) versus usual care.Design: Randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01967342).Setting: Community health centers serving low-income patients in Alabama.Patients: Adults (aged 19 to 71 years) with mixed chronic pain.Interventions: CBT and EDU delivered in 10 weekly 90-minute group sessions.Measurements: Self-reported, postintervention pain intensity (primary outcome) and physical function and depression (secondary outcomes).Results: 290 participants were enrolled (70.7% of whom were women, 66.9% minority group members, 72.4% at or below the poverty level, and 35.8% reading below the fifth grade level); 241 (83.1%) participated in posttreatment assessments. Linear mixed models included all randomly assigned participants. Members of the CBT and EDU groups had larger decreases in pain intensity scores between baseline and posttreatment than participants receiving usual care (estimated differences in change scores-CBT: -0.80 [95% CI -1.48 to -0.11]; P = 0.022; EDU: -0.57 [CI, -1.04 to -0.10]; P = 0.018). At 6-month follow-up, treatment gains were not maintained in the CBT group but were still present in the EDU group. With regard to physical function, participants in the CBT and EDU interventions had greater posttreatment improvement than those receiving usual care, and this progress was maintained at 6-month follow-up. Changes in depression (secondary outcome) did not differ between either the CBT or EDU group and the usual care group.Limitations: Participants represented a single health care system. Self-selection bias may have been present.Conclusion: Simplified group CBT and EDU interventions delivered at low-income clinics significantly improved pain and physical function compared with usual care.Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]