Opportunities and challenges around adapting supported employment interventions for people with chronic low back pain: modified nominal group technique

Patient-to-Patient Interactions During the Pain Management Programme: The Role of Humor and Venting in Building a Socially Supportive Community

Objectives

Social support is most positively perceived when there is an optimal match between a patient's need for communication and the purpose of their interaction. Maladaptive communication patterns may inhibit social bonding or mutual support, negatively impacting clinical outcomes. This study aimed to identify how people with chronic pain naturalistically converse together about their pain in the context of a Pain Management Programme (PMP).

Methods

Seven participants (4 females; 3 males) with ongoing chronic pain who were attending a PMP in a regional hospital in the United Kingdom were audio/video recorded during breaks in their PMP. Interactions were transcribed using Jeffersonian Transcription and analyzed using Conversation Analysis.

Results

Two conversational mechanisms were identified: (1) Conversational humor; and (2) A venting cycle. Participants used their pain-related experiences construct a motive for a joke, then proceeded to deliver the joke, which initiated a joke return from observers. The sequence was completed by a collaborative punchline. In the venting cycle, an initial complaint was escalated by the sharing of comparable experiences, after which the vent was concluded through a joke punchline, acting as a pivot to move the conversation forwards, terminating the venting.

Conclusions

Humorous interpersonal interactions about chronic pain provided a forum for social support-building within the PMP. Humor was affiliative and built social collaboration, helping individuals to together make sense of their pain in a prosocial atmosphere, approaching pain-related experiences with levity. Patient-to-patient interactions within the PMP were strongly prosocial and inclusive, potentially facilitating enhanced PMP clinical outcomes through collaboration.

Items for consideration in a reporting guideline for mediation analyses: a Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

Mediation analysis is a widely used quantitative method for investigating how interventions and exposures in randomised controlled trials and observational studies have an effect on healthcare outcomes. This study aimed to assess the importance of items that should be considered in a consensus meeting aimed at developing a guideline for reporting mediation analyses.

DESIGN

International online Delphi study.

PARTICIPANTS

International experts in the development and application of mediation analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Delphi panel were asked to rate the importance of a list of items for inclusion in a guideline for reporting mediation analyses. Thresholds for disagreement and consensus on importance for inclusion were specified a priori. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to quantitatively assess the importance for inclusion and panel agreement.

RESULTS

Nineteen expert panellists (10 female) from seven countries agreed to participate. All panellists contributed to all three rounds conducted between 10 June 2019 and 6 November 2019. The panel reached consensus on 34 unique reporting items for study design, analytic procedures and effect estimates, with three items rated 'optional'. Panellists added one extra item and provided 60 qualitative comments for item refinement and prioritisation.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi study used a rigorous consensus process to reach consensus on 34 reporting items for studies that use mediation analysis. These results will inform a consensus meeting that will consolidate a core set of recommended items for reporting mediation analyses.