BackgroundConsensus guidelines recommend multi-modal chronic pain treatment with increased uptake of non-pharmacological pain treatment modalities (NPMs). We aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to uptake of evidence-based NPMs from the perspectives of patients, nurses and primary care providers (PCPs).MethodsWe convened eight separate groups and engaged each in a Nominal Group Technique (NGT) in which participants: (1) created an individual list of barriers (and, in a subsequent round, facilitators) to uptake of NPMs; (2) compiled a group list from the individual lists; and (3) anonymously voted on the top three most important barriers and facilitators. In a separate process, research staff reviewed each group’s responses and categorized them based on staff consensus.ResultsOverall, 26 patients (14 women) with chronic pain participated; their mean age was 55. Overall, 14 nurses and 12 PCPs participated. Seven healthcare professionals were men and 19 were women; the mean age was 45. We categorized barriers and facilitators as related to access, patient-provider interaction, treatment beliefs and support. Top-ranked patient-reported barriers included high cost, transportation problems and low motivation, while top-ranked facilitators included availability of a wider array of NPMs and a team-based approach that included follow-up. Top-ranked provider-reported barriers included inability to promote NPMs once opioid therapy was started and patient skepticism about efficacy of NPMs, while top-ranked facilitators included promotion of a facility-wide treatment philosophy and increased patient knowledge about risks and benefits of NPMs.ConclusionsIn a multi-stakeholder qualitative study using NGT, we found a diverse array of potentially modifiable barriers and facilitators to NPM uptake that may serve as important targets for program development.

The U.S. National Pain Strategy calls for increased population research on “high impact chronic pain,” i.e., longstanding pain that substantially limits participation in daily activities. Using data from the nationally-representative Health and Retirement Study (HRS), we investigated the prevalence of high-impact chronic pain in U.S. adults over age 50 overall and within population subgroups. We also explored sociodemographic variation in pain-related disability within specific activity domains. Data are from a subsample of HRS respondents (n=1,925) who were randomly selected for a supplementary pain module in 2010. Our outcome was operationalized as pain duration of ≥7 months and a disability rating of ≥7 (0 to 10 scale) in at least one domain: family/home, leisure, social activities, work, or basic activities. Overall, 8.2% (95% C.I. = 6.7 to 10.1%) of adults over age 50 met criteria for high-impact chronic pain. This proportion rose to 17.1% (95% C.I. = 12.3 to 23.4%) among individuals in the lowest wealth quartile. Prevalence differences by education, race/ethnicity and age were not significant. Arthritis and depression were significantly associated with high-impact pain in multivariable analysis. Among adults with any chronic pain, African Americans and individuals in the lowest wealth quartile reported more pain-related disability across activity domains.

Students with diabetes continue to face challenges at school. Training staff and classmates and allowing students the maximum appropriate flexibility in diabetes care appears beneficial for disease control and QOL.

Future trials should focus on direct comparisons of technology-assisted interventions with in-person treatment and head to head comparisons of different technology-assisted modalities. Additional areas of focus include quantifying the cost of technology-assisted interventions, examining the effect of treatment "dose" on outcomes, and establishing guidelines for developing treatments for the technology-assisted environment.

IMPORTANCE Recommendations for chronic pain treatment emphasize multimodal approaches, including nonpharmacologic interventions to enhance self-management. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based treatment that facilitates management of chronic pain and improves outcomes, but access barriers persist. Cognitive behavioral therapy delivery assisted by health technology can obviate the need for in-person visits, but the effectiveness of this alternative to standard therapy is unknown. The Cooperative Pain Education and Self-management (COPES) trial was a randomized, noninferiority trial comparing IVR-CBT to in-person CBT for patients with chronic back pain. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of interactive voice response-based CBT (IVR-CBT) relative to in-person CBT for chronic back pain. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We conducted a noninferiority randomized trial in 1 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. A total of 125 patients with chronic back pain were equally allocated to IVR-CBT (n = 62) or in-person CBT (n = 63). INTERVENTIONS Patients treated with IVR-CBT received a self-help manual and weekly prerecorded therapist feedback based on their IVR-reported activity, coping skill practice, and pain outcomes. In-person CBT included weekly, individual CBT sessions with a therapist. Participants in both conditions received IVR monitoring of pain, sleep, activity levels, and pain coping skill practice during treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was change from baseline to 3 months in unblinded patient report of average pain intensity measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included changes in pain-related interference, physical and emotional functioning, sleep quality, and quality of life at 3, 6, and 9 months. We also examined treatment retention. RESULTS Of the 125 patients (97 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 57.9 [11.6] years), the adjusted average reduction in NRS with IVR-CBT (−0.77) was similar to in-person CBT (−0.84), with the 95% CI for the difference between groups (−0.67 to 0.80) falling below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1 indicating IVR-CBT is noninferior. Fifty-four patients randomized to IVR-CBT and 50 randomized to in-person CBT were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. Statistically significant improvements in physical functioning, sleep quality, and physical quality of life at 3 months relative to baseline occurred in both treatments, with no advantage for either treatment. Treatment dropout was lower in IVR-CBT with patients completing on average 2.3 (95% CI, 1.0-3.6) more sessions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE IVR-CBT is a low-burden alternative that can increase access to CBT for chronic pain and shows promise as a nonpharmacologic treatment option for chronic pain, with outcomes that are not inferior to in-person CBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01025752

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are highly prevalent, painful, and costly disorders. The MSD Cohort was created to characterize variation in pain, comorbidities, treatment, and outcomes among patients with MSD receiving Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care across demographic groups, geographic regions, and facilities. We searched electronic health records to identify patients treated in VHA who had ICD9-CM codes for diagnoses including, but not limited to, joint, back and neck disorders, and osteoarthritis. Cohort inclusion criteria were two or more outpatient visits occurring within 18 months of one another or one inpatient visit with an MSD diagnosis between 2000 and 2011. The first diagnosis is the index date. Pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, comorbid medical and mental health diagnoses, pain-related treatments, and other characteristics were collected retrospectively and prospectively. The cohort includes 5,237,763 patients; their mean age was 59, 6% were women, 15% identified as Black, and 18% reported severe pain (NRS ≥ 7) on the index date. Non-traumatic joint (27%), back (25%) and osteoarthritis (21%) were the most common MSD diagnoses. Patients entering the cohort in recent years had more concurrent MSD diagnoses and higher NRS scores. The MSD cohort is a rich resource for collaborative pain-relevant health service research.

Participants in this study evidenced a high degree of participation and adherence, but treatment tailored to take into account participant preferences, and that employed motivational enhancement strategies, failed to increase treatment participation over and above SCBT for chronic back pain. Evidence that participation and adherence were associated with positive outcomes supports continued clinical and research efforts focusing on these therapeutic processes.

Adopting an action attitude early in treatment may represent a specific CBT mechanism but with effects held largely in common with 2 general mechanisms.