clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00246896.

Pain and depression are the most prevalent physical and psychological symptom-based disorders, respectively, and co-occur 30–50% of the time. However, their reciprocal relationship and potentially causative effects on one another have been inadequately studied. Longitudinal data analysis involving 500 primary care patients with persistent back, hip or knee pain were enrolled in the Stepped Care for Affective Disorders and Musculoskeletal Pain (SCAMP) study. Half of the participants had comorbid depression and were randomized to a stepped care intervention (n = 123) or treatment as usual (n = 127). Another 250 nondepressed patients with similar pain were followed in a parallel cohort. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Mixed effects model repeated measures (MMRM) multivariable analyses were conducted to determine if change in pain severity predicted subsequent depression severity, and vice-versa. Change in pain was a strong predictor of subsequent depression severity (t-value = 6.63, p < .0001). Likewise, change in depression severity was an equally strong predictor of subsequent pain severity (t-value = 7.28, p < .0001). Results from the full cohort were similar in the clinical trial subgroup. In summary, pain and depression have strong and similar effects on one another when assessed longitudinally over 12 months.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate pain assessment is a barrier to appropriate pain management, but single-item "pain screening" provides limited information about chronic pain. Multidimensional pain measures such as the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) are widely used in pain specialty and research settings, but are impractical for primary care. A brief and straightforward multidimensional pain measure could potentially improve initial assessment and followup of chronic pain in primary care. OBJECTIVES:To develop an ultra-brief pain measure derived from the BPI.DESIGN: Development of a shortened three-item pain measure and initial assessment of its reliability, validity, and responsiveness. PARTICIPANTS:We used data from 1) a longitudinal study of 500 primary care patients with chronic pain and 2) a cross-sectional study of 646 veterans recruited from ambulatory care.RESULTS: Selected items assess average pain intensity (P), interference with enjoyment of life (E), and interference with general activity (G). Reliability of the threeitem scale (PEG) was α=0.73 and 0.89 in the two study samples. Overall, construct validity of the PEG was good for various pain-specific measures (r=0.60-0.89 in Study 1 and r=0.77-0.95 in Study 2), and comparable to that of the BPI. The PEG was sensitive to change and differentiated between patients with and without pain improvement at 6 months. DISCUSSION:We provide strong initial evidence for reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the PEG among primary care and other ambulatory clinic patients. The PEG may be a practical and useful tool to improve assessment and monitoring of chronic pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE To assess the relationship between depression and anxiety comorbidity on pain intensity, pain-related disability, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHODS Analysis of baseline data from the Stepped Care for Affective disorders and Musculoskeletal Pain (SCAMP) Study. All patients (N = 500) had chronic pain (≥ 3 months duration) of the low back, hip or knee. Patients with depression were over-sampled for the clinical trial component of SCAMP and thus represented 50% of the study population. Patients were categorized according to pain comorbid with depression, anxiety, or both. We used ANOVA and MANOVA models to asess relationships between independent and dependent variables. RESULTS Participants had a mean age of 59 years; were 55% women, 56% white and 40% black. Fifty-four percent (n=271) reported pain only, 20% (n=98) had pain and depression, 3% (n=15) had pain and anxiety, and 23% (n=116) had pain, depression, and anxiety. Patients with pain and both depression and anxiety experienced the greatest pain severity (p < .0001) and pain-related disability (p < .0001). Psychiatric comorbidity was strongly associated with disability days in the past 3 months (p < .0001), with 18.1 days reported by patients with pain only, 32.2 days by those with pain and anxiety, 38.0 days by those with pain and depression, and 42.6 days in those with all three conditions. We found a similar pattern of poorer HRQL (p <.0001) in those with pain, depression, and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS The added morbidity of depression and anxiety with chronic pain is strongly associated with more severe pain, greater disability, and poorer HRQL.

Context Pain and depression are the most common physical and psychological symptoms in primary care, respectively. Moreover, they co-occur 30% to 50% of the time and have adverse effects on quality of life, disability, and health care costs.Objective To determine if a combined pharmacological and behavioral intervention improves both depression and pain in primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depression. Design, Setting, and Patients Randomized controlled trial (Stepped Care for Affective Disorders and Musculoskeletal Pain [SCAMP]) conducted at 6 communitybased clinics and 5 Veterans Affairs general medicine clinics in Indianapolis, Indiana. Recruitment occurred from January 2005 to June 2007 and follow-up concluded in June 2008. The 250 patients had low back, hip, or knee pain for 3 months or longer and at least moderate depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 score Ն10).Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=123) or to usual care (n=127). The intervention consisted of 12 weeks of optimized antidepressant therapy (step 1) followed by 6 sessions of a pain self-management program over 12 weeks (step 2), and a continuation phase of therapy for 6 months (step 3).Main Outcome Measures Depression (20-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist), pain severity and interference (Brief Pain Inventory), and global improvement in pain at 12 months.Results At 12 months, 46 of the 123 intervention patients (37.4%) had a 50% or greater reduction in depression severity from baseline compared with 21 of 127 usual care patients (16.5%) (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.2), corresponding to a much lower number of patients with major depression (50 [40.7%] vs 87 [68.5%], respectively; RR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8]). Also, a clinically significant (Ն30%) reduction in pain was much more likely in intervention patients (51 intervention patients [41.5%] vs 22 usual care patients [17.3%]; RR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.6-3.2]), as was global improvement in pain (58 [47.2%] vs 16 [12.6%], respectively; RR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.3-6.1]). More intervention patients also experienced benefits in terms of the primary outcome, which was a combined improvement in both depression and pain (32 intervention patients [26.0%] vs 10 usual care patients [7.9%]; RR, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.8-5.4]). ConclusionOptimized antidepressant therapy followed by a pain selfmanagement program resulted in substantial improvement in depression as well as moderate reductions in pain severity and disability.

Background/aims:The idea that champions are crucial to effective healthcare-related implementation has gained broad acceptance; yet the champion construct has been hampered by inconsistent use across the published literature. This integrative review sought to establish the current state of the literature on champions in healthcare settings and bring greater clarity to this important construct.Methods:This integrative review was limited to research articles in peer-reviewed, English-language journals published from 1980 to 2016. Searches were conducted on the online MEDLINE database via OVID and PubMed using the keyword “champion.” Several additional terms often describe champions and were also included as keywords: implementation leader, opinion leader, facilitator, and change agent. Bibliographies of full-text articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed for additional references not yet identified via the main strategy of conducting keyword searches in MEDLINE. A five-member team abstracted all full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria.Results:The final dataset for the integrative review consisted of 199 unique articles. Use of the term champion varied widely across the articles with respect to topic, specific job positions, or broader organizational roles. The most common method for operationalizing champion for purposes of analysis was the use of a dichotomous variable designating champion presence or absence. Four studies randomly allocated of the presence or absence of champions.Conclusions:The number of published champion-related articles has markedly increased: more articles were published during the last two years of this review (i.e. 2015–2016) than during its first 30 years (i.e. 1980–2009).The number of champion-related articles has continued to increase sharply since the year 2000. Individual studies consistently found that champions were important positive influences on implementation effectiveness. Although few in number, the randomized trials of champions that have been conducted demonstrate the feasibility of using experimental design to study the effects of champions in healthcare.

BackgroundThe Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, or PARIHS, is a conceptual framework that posits key, interacting elements that influence successful implementation of evidence-based practices. It has been widely cited and used as the basis for empirical work; however, there has not yet been a literature review to examine how the framework has been used in implementation projects and research. The purpose of the present article was to critically review and synthesize the literature on PARIHS to understand how it has been used and operationalized, and to highlight its strengths and limitations.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative, critical synthesis of peer-reviewed PARIHS literature published through March 2009. We synthesized findings through a three-step process using semi-structured data abstraction tools and group consensus.ResultsTwenty-four articles met our inclusion criteria: six core concept articles from original PARIHS authors, and eighteen empirical articles ranging from case reports to quantitative studies. Empirical articles generally used PARIHS as an organizing framework for analyses. No studies used PARIHS prospectively to design implementation strategies, and there was generally a lack of detail about how variables were measured or mapped, or how conclusions were derived. Several studies used findings to comment on the framework in ways that could help refine or validate it. The primary issue identified with the framework was a need for greater conceptual clarity regarding the definition of sub-elements and the nature of dynamic relationships. Strengths identified included its flexibility, intuitive appeal, explicit acknowledgement of the outcome of 'successful implementation,' and a more expansive view of what can and should constitute 'evidence.'ConclusionsWhile we found studies reporting empirical support for PARIHS, the single greatest need for this and other implementation models is rigorous, prospective use of the framework to guide implementation projects. There is also need to better explain derived findings and how interventions or measures are mapped to specific PARIHS elements; greater conceptual discrimination among sub-elements may be necessary first. In general, it may be time for the implementation science community to develop consensus guidelines for reporting the use and usefulness of theoretical frameworks within implementation studies.

OBJECTIVE To identify barriers and facilitators to self-management of chronic musculoskeletal pain among patients with comorbid pain and depression. DESIGN A qualitative study using focus group methodology SETTING Veteran Affairs (VA) and University primary care clinics PATIENTS Recruited after participation in a clinical trial INTERVENTION The Stepped Care for Affective Disorders and Musculoskeletal Pain (SCAMP) trial tested an intervention of optimized anti-depressant therapy combined with a pain self-management program versus usual care for primary care patients with comorbid chronic pain and depression. OUTCOME MEASURES Thematic content analysis from focus group data was used to identify patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to self-management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. RESULTS Patients (N = 18) were 27 to 84 years old (M = 54.8), 61% women, 72% White, and 22% Black. Barriers to pain self-management included: 1) lack of support from friends and family; 2) limited resources (e.g. transportation, financial); 3) depression; 4) ineffectiveness of pain-relief strategies; 5) time constraints and other life priorities; 6) avoiding activity because of fear of pain exacerbation; 7) lack of tailoring strategies to meet personal needs; 8) not being able to maintain the use of strategies after study completion; 9) physical limitations; and 10) difficult patient-physician interactions. Facilitators to improve pain self-management included 1) encouragement from nurse care managers; 2) improving depression with treatment; 3) supportive family and friends; and 4) providing a menu of different self-management strategies to use. CONCLUSIONS Future research is needed to confirm these findings and to design interventions that capitalize on the facilitators identified while at the same time addressing the barriers to pain self-management.