Search

Background The Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial found that a group-based educational intervention to support people using strong opioids for chronic non-malignant pain helped a significant proportion of people to stop or decrease opioid use with no increase in pain-related disability. We report a linked process evaluation of the group-based intervention evaluated in comparison to a usual-care control group that received a self-help booklet and relaxation CD.Methods We interviewed 18 intervention facilitators, and 20 intervention and 20 control participants who had chronic non-malignant pain and were recruited from general (family) practices in the UK. Quantitative data included change mechanism questions on the trial questionnaires which explored motivation, expectations and self-efficacy. Fidelity was assessed by listening to a sample of audio-recorded group sessions and nurse consultations. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using ‘follow a thread’ and a mixed-methods matrix.Findings Four overarching themes emerged: (1) the right time to taper, (2) the backdrop of a life with chronic pain, (3) needing support and (4) the benefits of being in a group. Delivery fidelity was good, adherence (83%) and competence (79%) across a range of intervention groups. Staff delivering the intervention found three typical responses to the intervention: resistance, open to trying and feeling it was not the right time. The group experience was important to those in the intervention arm. It provided people with a forum in which to learn about the current thinking about opioid usage and its effects. It also gave them examples of how feasible or personally relevant coming off opioids might be.Conclusion The process evaluation data showed that the I-WOTCH intervention was well delivered, well received and useful for most interviewees. Being ‘the right time’ to taper and having support throughout tapering, emerged as important factors within the context of living with chronic pain.Trial registration number ISRCTN49470934.

Background People with pulmonary hypertension (PH) are not routinely referred for exercise rehabilitation despite the potential for reducing breathlessness and improving quality of life. We describe the development of a supervised pulmonary hypertension exercise rehabilitation (SPHERe) programme for people with PH.Methods Development was completed in three phases: (1) systematic review, (2) stakeholder engagement with consensus from patients and experts and (3) prepilot intervention acceptability testing. We completed systematic reviews to identify international cardiopulmonary rehabilitation guidance and trials of exercise-based interventions for people with PH. Evidence from systematic reviews and stakeholder consensus shaped the SPHERe intervention, including addition of individual behavioural support sessions to promote exercise adherence. The draft SPHERe intervention was ratified through discussions with multidisciplinary professionals and people living with PH. We acceptability tested the centre-based intervention with eight participants in a prepilot development phase which identified a number of condition-specific issues relating to safety and fear avoidance of activity. Comprehensive intervention practitioner training manuals were produced to ensure standardised delivery. Participant workbooks were developed and piloted. Trial recruitment began in January 2020 but was subsequently suspended in March 2020 further to COVID-19 pandemic ‘lockdowns’. In response to the pandemic, we undertook further development work to redesign the intervention to be suitable for exclusively home-based online delivery. Recruitment to the revised protocol began in June 2021.Discussion The final SPHERe intervention incorporated weekly home-based online group exercise and behavioural support ‘coaching’ sessions supervised by trained practitioners, with a personalised home exercise plan and the optional loan of a stationary exercise bike. The intervention was fully manualised with clear pathways for assessment and individualised exercise prescription. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of the SPHERe online rehabilitation intervention is currently being tested in a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial.Trial registration number ISCRTN10608766.

ObjectivesTo test the feasibility of implementing a brief but intensive hybrid cognitive behavioural therapy (Hybrid CBT) for pain-related insomnia.DesignMixed-methods, with qualitative process evaluation on a two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsTwenty-five adult patients with chronic pain and insomnia.InterventionHybrid CBT or self-help control intervention.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes measures were the Insomnia Severity Index and interference scale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes measures were the present pain intensity rating from the BPI, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and EQ-5D-5L.ResultsFourteen participants were randomised to receive Hybrid CBT, 11 to receive the self-help control treatment. Of the 14 in the Hybrid CBT group, 9 (64%) completed all four treatment sessions (4 discontinued due to poor health; 1 due to time constraints). Adherence to the self-help control treatment was not monitored. The total number of participants completing the 12-week and 24-week follow-ups were 12 (6 in each group; Hybrid CBT: 43%; self-help: 55%) and 10 (5 in each group; Hybrid CBT: 36%; self-help: 45%). Based on the data available, candidate outcome measures appeared to be sensitive to changes associated with interventions. Thematic analysis of pre-postintervention interview data revealed satisfaction with treatment content among those who completed the Hybrid CBT, whereas those in the self-help control treatment wanted more contact hours and therapist guidance. Other practical suggestions for improvement included shortening the duration of each treatment session, reducing the amount of assessment paperwork, and minimising the burden of sleep and pain monitoring.ConclusionImportant lessons were learnt with regard to the infrastructure required to achieve better patient adherence and retention. Based on the qualitative feedback provided by a subset of treatment completers, future trials should also consider lowering the intensity of treatment and streamlining the data collection procedure.Trial registration numberISRCTN17294365.

ObjectiveTo review qualitative studies on the experience of taking opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) or coming off them.DesignThis is a qualitative evidence synthesis using a seven-step approach from the methods of meta-ethnography.Data sources and eligibility criteriaWe searched selected databases—Medline, Embase, AMED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus (Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index)—for qualitative studies which provide patients’ views of taking opioid medication for CNMP or of coming off them (June 2017, updated September 2018).Data extraction and synthesisPapers were quality appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool, and the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group - Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) guidelines were applied. We identified concepts and iteratively abstracted these concepts into a line of argument.ResultsWe screened 2994 unique citations and checked 153 full texts, and 31 met our review criteria. We identified five themes: (1) reluctant users with little choice; (2) understanding opioids: the good and the bad; (3) a therapeutic alliance: not always on the same page; (4) stigma: feeling scared and secretive but needing support; and (5) the challenge of tapering or withdrawal. A new overarching theme of ‘constantly balancing’ emerged from the data.ConclusionsPeople taking opioids were constantly balancing tensions, not always wanting to take opioids, and weighing the pros and cons of opioids but feeling they had no choice because of the pain. They frequently felt stigmatised, were not always ‘on the same page’ as their healthcare professional and felt changes in opioid use were often challenging.Trial registration number49470934; Pre-results.