Background Electronic health (eHealth) is the use of information and communication technology in the context of health care and health research. Recently, there has been a rise in the number of eHealth modalities and the frequency with which they are used to deliver technology-assisted self-management interventions for people living with chronic pain. However, there has been little or no research directly comparing these eHealth modalities. Objective The aim of this systematic review with a network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the effectiveness of eHealth modalities in the context of chronic pain. Methods Randomized controlled trials (N>20 per arm) that investigated interventions for adults with chronic pain, delivered via an eHealth modality, were included. Included studies were categorized into their primary node of delivery. Data were extracted on the primary outcome, pain interference, and secondary outcomes, pain severity, psychological distress, and health-related quality of life. Pairwise meta-analyses were undertaken where possible, and an NMA was conducted to generate indirect comparisons and rankings of modalities for reducing pain interference. Results The search returned 18,470 studies with 18,349 being excluded (duplicates=2310; title and abstract=16,039). Of the remaining papers, 30 studies with 5394 randomized participants were included in the review. Rankings tentatively indicated that modern eHealth modalities are the most effective, with a 43% chance that mobile apps delivered the most effective interventions, followed by a 34% chance that interventions delivered via virtual reality were the most effective. Conclusions This systematic review with an NMA generated comparisons between eHealth modalities previously not compared to determine which delivered the most effective interventions for the reduction of pain interference in chronic pain patients. There are limitations with this review, in particular, the underrepresented nature of some eHealth modalities included in the analysis. However, in the event that the review is regularly updated, a clear ranking of eHealth modalities for the reduction of pain interference will emerge.

Research using a categorical-polythetic classification system for mental illness has raised concern regarding the validity of categorical classification systems. Recent efforts suggest psychopathology is better understood from a dimensional framework, though there has been varying evidence of a somatization factor. The current investigation seeks to produce and validate a dimensional model of psychopathology, with a particular emphasis on the placement of somatization, across three nonoverlapping medical samples. Using a bariatric surgery seeking sample (n = 1,268), a spine surgery/spinal cord stimulator seeking sample (n = 1,711), and a chronic pain treatment seeking sample (n = 1,388), a dimensional model of psychopathology was replicated across all three samples using a dimensional measure of psychopathology (the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form [MMPI-2-RF]). Clear evidence of a separate somatization factor was found in addition to broad internalizing, externalizing, and social detachment factors. Constructs assessable with the model yielded good convergent and discriminant validity coefficients with external criteria, and further supported the presence of a higher-order somatization construct.

BackgroundAs eHealth interventions prove both efficacious and practical, and as they arguably overcome certain barriers encountered by traditional face-to-face treatment for chronic pain, their number has increased dramatically in recent times. However, there is a dearth of research that focuses on evaluating and comparing the different types of technology-assisted interventions. This is a protocol for a systematic review that aims to evaluate the eHealth modalities in the context of psychological and non-psychological (other than non-drug) interventions for chronic pain.Methods/designWe will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 20 participants per trial arm that have evaluated non-drug psychological or non-psychological interventions delivered via an eHealth modality and have pain as an outcome measure will be included. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess the study suitability in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Studies will be included if they measure at least one outcome variable in accordance with the IMMPACT guidelines (i.e. pain severity, pain interference, physical functioning, symptoms, emotional functioning, global improvement and disposition). Secondary outcomes will be measures of depression and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A network meta-analysis will be conducted based on direct comparisons to generate indirect comparisons of modalities across treatment trials, which will return rankings for the eHealth modalities in terms of their effectiveness.DiscussionMost trials that use an eHealth intervention to manage chronic pain typically use one modality. As a result, little evidence exists to support which modality type is the most effective. The current review will address this gap in the literature and compare the different eHealth modalities used for technology-assisted interventions for chronic pain. With the growing reliance and use of technology as a medium for delivering treatment for chronic conditions more generally, it is imperative that research identify the most efficacious eHealth modalities and systematically identify the most important features of such treatment types, so they may be replicated and used for research and in the provision of care.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42016035595 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0414-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: There is increasing evidence for the use of psychotherapies, including cognitive behavioural therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness based stress reduction therapy, as an approach to management of chronic pain. Similarly, online psychotherapeutic interventions have been shown to be efficacious, and to arguably overcome practical barriers associated with traditional face-to-face treatment for chronic pain. This is a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis aiming to evaluate and rank psychotherapies (delivered in person and online) for chronic pain patients. Methods/ design: Four databases, namely the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO will be searched from inception. Randomised controlled trials that have evaluated psychological interventions for pain management delivered online or in person will be included in the review. Data will be independently extracted in duplicate and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess study quality. Measures of pain interference will be extracted as the primary outcome and measures of psychological distress will be extracted as the secondary outcome. A network meta-analysis will generate indirect comparisons of psychotherapies across treatment trials. Rankings of psychotherapies for chronic pain will be made available.   Discussion: A variety of psychotherapies, delivered both online and in person, have been used in an attempt to help manage chronic pain. Although occasional head to head trials have been conducted, little evidence exists to help identify which psychotherapy is most effective in reducing pain interference. The current review will address this gap in the literature and compare the psychotherapies used for internet delivered and in person interventions for chronic pain in relation to the reduction of pain interference and psychological distress. Results will provide a guide for clinicians when determining treatment course and will inform future research into psychotherapies for chronic pain. PROSPERO registration: CRD42016048518 01/11/16

No abstract

IntroductionMultimorbidity (MM) refers to the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions within one person, where no one condition is considered primary. As populations age and healthcare provision improves, MM is becoming increasingly common and poses a challenge to the single morbidity approach to illness management, usually adopted by healthcare systems. Indeed, recent research has shown that 66.2% of the people in primary care in Ireland are living with MM. Healthcare usage and cost is significantly associated with MM, and additional chronic conditions lead to exponential increases in service usage and financial costs, and decreases in physical and mental well-being. Certain conditions, for example, chronic pain, are highly correlated with MM. This study aims to assess the extent, profile, impact and cost of MM among Irish adults with chronic pain.Methods and analysisUsing cluster sampling, participants aged 18 years and over will be recruited from Irish pain clinics and provided an information package and questionnaire asking them to participate in our study at three time points, 1 year apart. The questionnaire will include our specially developed checklist to assess the prevalence and impact of MM, along with validated measures of quality of life, pain, depression and anxiety, and illness perception. Economic data will also be collected, including direct and indirect costs.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the National University of Ireland, Galway. Dissemination of results will be via journal articles and conference presentations.

Introduction: There is increasing evidence for the use of psychotherapies, including cognitive behavioural therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness based stress reduction therapy, as an approach to management of chronic pain. Similarly, online psychotherapeutic interventions have been shown to be efficacious, and to arguably overcome practical barriers associated with traditional face-to-face treatment for chronic pain. This is a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis aiming to evaluate and rank psychotherapies (delivered in person and online) for chronic pain patients. Methods/ design: Four databases, namely the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO will be searched from inception. Randomised controlled trials that have evaluated psychological interventions for pain management delivered online or in person will be included in the review. Data will be independently extracted in duplicate and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess study quality. Measures of pain interference will be extracted as the primary outcome and measures of psychological distress will be extracted as the secondary outcome. A network meta-analysis will generate indirect comparisons of psychotherapies across treatment trials. Rankings of psychotherapies for chronic pain will be made available.   Discussion: A variety of psychotherapies, delivered both online and in person, have been used in an attempt to help manage chronic pain. Although occasional head to head trials have been conducted, little evidence exists to help identify which psychotherapy is most effective in reducing pain interference. The current review will address this gap in the literature and compare the psychotherapies used for internet delivered and in person interventions for chronic pain in relation to the reduction of pain interference and psychological distress. Results will provide a guide for clinicians when determining treatment course and will inform future research into psychotherapies for chronic pain. PROSPERO registration: CRD42016048518 01/11/16

Given the evidence that demonstrated within follow-up period associations between relapse and arrest, relapse prevention is critical to preventing contact with the criminal justice system. In addition, the lasting impact of an arrest must be mitigated to maintain posttreatment recovery from substance use for adults who come into contact with the criminal justice system.