Mixed Methods Study of Patient and Primary Care Provider Perceptions of Chronic Pain Treatment

Assessing the mediating role of disenfranchising talk on the well-being of female patients with chronic overlapping pain conditions

OBJECTIVE

Disenfranchising talk (DT) occurs when health care providers discredit, silence, and stereotype patients. Although ample research has suggested associations among negative patient-provider interactions and poorer well-being, this study is the first to investigate the mediating role of patient-provider DT in exacerbating poorer pain-related health correlates.

METHODS

Female patients living with chronic overlapping pain conditions (N = 348) completed a cross-sectional survey including measures of DT, pain severity, pain catastrophizing, and pain disability, as well as demographic information. Structural equation modeling in AMOS 29 assessed whether DT mediated the relationship between age, educational attainment, and sexual orientation (demographics), and pain severity, catastrophizing, and disability (pain-related health correlates).

RESULTS

Structural equation modeling revealed that DT mediated the relationship between age, educational attainment, and sexual orientation on pain-related health correlates, such that younger and LGBQA+ patients and those with less educational attainment reported heightened pain severity, catastrophizing, and disability when they also reported DT.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to scholarship assessing how demographics and pain-related variables influence patient-provider communication, this study instead investigated the mediating role of DT in pain-related health correlates.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers should avoid discrediting, silencing, or stereotyping female chronic pain patients' pain to potentially avoid exacerbating pain-related health correlates.

The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review

Chronic pain (CP) and mental illness (MI) are leading causes of years lived with disability and commonly co-occur. However, it remains unclear if available interventions are effective in improving pain outcomes in patients with co-existing CP and MI. This systematic review synthesised evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve pain outcomes for people with comorbid CP and clinically diagnosed MI. Ten electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they evaluated interventions for CP-related outcomes among people with comorbid CP and clinically diagnosed MI. Pain-related and mental health outcomes were reported as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. 26 RCTs (2,311 participants) were included. Four trials evaluated the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy, 6 mindfulness-based interventions, 1 interpersonal psychotherapy, 5 body-based interventions, 5 multi-component interventions, and 5 examined pharmacological-based interventions. Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity in sample characteristics and interventions, and included studies were generally of poor quality with insufficient trial details being reported. Despite the inconsistency in results, preliminary evidence suggests interventions demonstrating a positive effect on CP may include cognitive-behavioural therapy for patients with depression (with a small to medium effect size) and multi-component intervention for people with substance use disorders (with a small effect size). Despite the high occurrence/burden of CP and MI, there is a relative paucity of RCTs investigating interventions and none in people with severe MI. More rigorously designed RCTs are needed to further support our findings. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review presents current evidence evaluating interventions for CP-related and MH outcomes for people with comorbid CP and clinically diagnosed MI. Our findings could potentially help clinicians identify the most effective treatments to manage these symptoms for this vulnerable patient group.

A cross-sectional survey exploring clinician perceptions of a novel Medicaid back pain policy

OBJECTIVES

Oregon Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan, or OHP) implemented an innovative policy in 2016 that increased coverage of evidence-based non-pharmacologic therapies (NPT, including physical therapy, massage, chiropractic, and acupuncture) while restricting opioids, epidural steroid injections, and surgeries. The objective of this study was to compare the perspectives of clinicians who see back pain patients and can prescribe pharmacologic therapies and/or refer to NPTs and clinicians who directly provide NPT therapies affected by the policy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was administered to Oregon prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians between December 2019 and February 2020. The survey was completed by 107 prescribing clinicians and 83 NPT clinicians.

RESULTS

Prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had only moderate levels of familiarity with core elements of the policy. Prescribing clinicians had higher levels of frustration caring for OHP patients with back pain than NPT clinicians (83 vs. 34%, p<0.001) and were less confident in their ability to provide effective care (73 vs. 85%, p = .025). Eighty-six percent of prescribing clinicians and 83% of NPT clinicians thought active NPT treatments were effective; 74 and 70% thought passive NPT treatments were effective. Forty percent of prescribing clinicians and 25% of NPT clinicians (p<0.001) thought medically-light therapies were effective, while 29% of prescribing clinicians and 10% of NPT clinicians thought medically-intensive treatments were effective (p=0.001). Prescribing clinicians thought increased access to NPTs improved outcomes, while opinions were less consistent on the impact of restricting opioid prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had varying perspectives of a Medicaid coverage policy to increase evidence-based back pain care. Understanding these perspectives is important for contextualizing policy effectiveness.

"The Pain Doesn't Have to Control You." A Qualitative Evaluation of Three Pain Clinics Teaching Nonopioid Pain Management Strategies

PURPOSE

To explore factors related to effectiveness of nonpharmacological treatment for opioid-dependent patients suffering with chronic pain.

APPROACH

A qualitative study incorporating individual interviews and focus group interviews.

SETTING

3 rural Oregon nonopioid pain management clinics.

INTERVENTION

A 10-week nonpharmacological educational program incorporating cognitive-behavioral therapy, movement therapy, mindfulness, and other skills.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Across sites, we conducted 9 individual interviews with clinic staff and 3 focus group interviews with 34 patients who had participated in the course. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes within and across respondent groups.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed 4 primary themes: program goals; program benefits; characteristics of patients who benefit from the program; coordination of clinic experiences with other care. Several primary findings can be highlighted. The clinics focused on improving patients' quality of life, while opioid use reduction was a potential secondary benefit, driven by patients. Major program benefits included enhanced pain self-management skills, patients' greater assertiveness in communications with healthcare providers, and, in numerous cases, opioid use reduction. Participants were unanimous that predisposition toward active self-management of one's pain was an essential factor for positive outcomes. Patients reported considerable variability in providers' understanding of their clinic participation.

CONCLUSION

Nonpharmacological approaches for treating chronic pain can be effective for many patients. Clinics teaching these approaches should be more fully integrated into the healthcare system.

Interprofessional Active Learning for Chronic Pain: Transforming Student Learning From Recall to Application

Chronic pain (CP) affects over 50 million Americans daily and represents a unique challenge for healthcare professionals due to its complexity. Across all health professions, only a small percentage of the curriculum is devoted to treating patients with CP. Unfortunately, much of the content is delivered passively via lecture without giving students an opportunity to practice the communication skills to effectively treat patients in the clinic. An interprofessional team of health educators identified 5 essential messages that students frequently struggle to convey to patients with CP. Those messages were based on interprofessional and profession-specific competencies to treat patients with CP from the International Association for the Study of Pain. The 5 messages highlighted the importance of (1) therapeutic alliance, (2) consistent interdisciplinary language, (3) patient prognosis, (4) evidence for pain medicine, surgery, and imaging, and (5) early referral to the interprofessional team. For each message, the team summarized relevant research supporting the importance of each individual message that could serve as a foundation for didactic content. The team then developed active learning educational activities that educators could use to have students practice the skills tied to each message. Each learning activity was designed to be delivered in an interprofessional manner.

A qualitative assessment of factors contributing to Spanish-speaking federally qualified health center patients' chronic pain experiences

People of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (Latinx people) experience pain diagnosis, treatment, and care disparities relative to non-Latinx Whites. Those whose preferred language is Spanish may experience additional disparities when receiving care in a language-discordant environment. In order to better understand medically underserved Spanish-speaking Latinx patients' pain care experience in primary care, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with federally qualified health center staff members (n = 9) and Spanish-speaking adult Latinx patients with chronic pain (n = 12) to capture data on their perspectives. Interview data were mapped to the individual (microsystem), interpersonal (mesosystem), organizational (exosystem), and environmental (macrosystem) levels of Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory and analyzed using thematic content analysis informed by the Framework Method. Findings suggest that Spanish-speaking patients and English-speaking care team members may interpret information about pain state and severity differently, may have misaligned expectations about care, treatment methodologies, and treatment goals, and may experience difficulty forming a mutual understanding during health care encounters due to cross-linguistic and cross-cultural miscommunication. Patients preferred to describe their pain in words rather than with numbers or standardized scales, and both patients and frontline care team members expressed frustration with medical interpretation services, which added time and complexity to visits. Patients and health center staff emphasized the diversity of experiences among Spanish-speaking Latinx people, and the need to account for both linguistic and cultural differences during care encounters. Both groups supported hiring more Spanish-speaking, Latinx healthcare personnel who better resemble the patient population, which has the potential to improve linguistic and cultural concordance and competence, with the aim of improving care outcomes and patient satisfaction. Further study is warranted to examine how linguistic and cultural communication barriers impact pain assessment and treatment in primary care, the extent to which patients feel understood by their care teams, and their confidence in their ability to understand and interpret treatment recommendations.

Patient Perspectives on Improving Patient-Provider Relationships and Provider Communication During Opioid Tapering

BACKGROUND

Efforts to reduce opioid overdose fatalities have resulted in tapering (i.e., reducing or discontinuing) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experiences.

OBJECTIVE

To explore patients' perspectives on opioid taper experiences to ultimately improve taper processes and outcomes.

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain who had undergone a reduction of opioid daily prescribed dosage of ≥50% in the past 2 years in two distinct medical systems and regions.

APPROACH

From 2019 to 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, systematically coded, and analyzed to summarize the content and identify key themes regarding taper experiences overall and with particular attention to patient-provider relationships and provider communication during tapers.

KEY RESULTS

Participants (n=41) had lived with chronic pain for an average of 17.4 years (range, 3-36 years) and described generally adverse experiences with opioid tapers, the initiation of which was not always adequately justified or explained to them. Consequences of tapers ranged from minor to substantial and included withdrawal, mobility issues, emotional distress, exacerbated mental health symptoms, and feelings of social stigmatization for which adequate supports were typically unavailable. Narratives highlighted the consequential role of patient-provider relationships throughout taper experiences, with most participants describing significant interpersonal challenges including poor provider communication and limited patient engagement in decision making. A few participants identified qualities of providers, relationships, and communication that fostered more positive taper experiences and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

From patients' perspectives, opioid tapers can produce significant physical, emotional, and social consequences, sometimes reducing trust and engagement in healthcare. Patient-provider relationships and communication influence patients' perceptions of the quality and outcomes of opioid tapers. To improve patients' experiences of opioid tapers, tapering plans should be based on individualized risk-benefit assessments and involve patient-centered approaches and improved provider communication.