Targeting Chronic Pain in Primary Care Settings by Using Behavioral Health Consultants: Methods of a Randomized Pragmatic Trial

Optimizing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Findings from the Pain Management Collaboratory

The National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs established a Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) in 2017, with the purpose of implementing and evaluating nonpharmacological approaches for management of pain and co-occurring conditions in military and veteran healthcare systems through the execution of pragmatic clinical trials. The purpose of the current study is to detail and critically examine recruitment and retention procedures across the PMC's large-scale multi-site pragmatic clinical trials, with attention to efforts made by trialists to diversify their study samples. Team members from 11 pragmatic clinical trials completed semi-structured interviews that focused on the meaning of diversity to the trial teams when planning the composition of their samples, methods used to recruit and retain diverse samples of patients, and planned analyses that take into consideration diverse subgroups of patients. Nearly 18,000 patients have been enrolled across trials, 22% of whom were assigned female sex at birth and 34% of whom identify with a marginalized race or ethnicity. Respondents highlighted study site selection, formation of partnerships with patient groups, and leveraging of data informatics as strategies that aided in the recruitment of patients diverse in terms of birth sex, race, and ethnicity. Notably, trialists adopted a narrow definition of diversity that did not take into consideration multiple intersecting identities of trial participants. Based on experiences of the PMC, we provide 14 recommendations on ways to diversify patient samples in clinical pain research. PERSPECTIVE: This article describes challenges posed, and opportunities provided, with pain pragmatic clinical trial designs, emphasizing approaches that optimize the inclusion of social identity groups that have historically been under-represented in pain research.

Optimising and personalising behavioural healthcare in the US Department of Defense through Primary Care Behavioral Health

Over the past 25 years, one way the US Department of Defense (DoD) has worked to optimise and personalise the delivery of behavioural healthcare is by integrating behavioural health providers into primary care settings. Using the Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) model for integration allows behavioural health providers to see service members and their families for brief and targeted appointments. These appointments are focused on ensuring that the patient receives the care that is needed, while reducing the barriers (eg, delays in receiving care, negative stigma, isolated from other medical care) that are often associated with seeking behavioural healthcare. We review the primary components of the PCBH model, detail the history of how the DoD implemented the PCBH model, review the training methods used by the DoD and briefly describe some of the research that has been conducted by the DoD evaluating the PCBH model.

Development of a booster intervention for graded sensorimotor retraining (RESOLVE) in people with persistent low back pain: A nested, randomised, feasibility trial

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain contributes to an increasing global health burden exacerbated by unsustained improvements from current treatments. There is a need to develop, and test interventions to maintain initial improvements from low back pain treatments. One option is to implement a booster intervention. This study aimed to develop and test the feasibility of implementing a booster intervention delivered remotely to supplement the benefits from a complex intervention for chronic low back pain.

METHOD

This study was nested in the RESOLVE trial. The booster intervention was developed by an expert group, including a clinical psychologist, exercise physiologist and physiotherapists, and based on a motivational interviewing framework. We developed a conversational flow chart to support the clinician to guide participants towards achieving their pre-specified personal goals and future low back pain self-management. Participants with chronic low back pain who were aged over 18 years and fluent in English were recruited. The booster intervention was delivered in one session, remotely, by telephone. The intervention was considered feasible if: participants were able to be contacted or <3 contacts were necessary to arrange the booster session; there were sufficient willing participants (<15% of sample unwilling to participate); and participants and research clinicians reported a perceived benefit of >7/10.

RESULTS

Fifty participants with chronic non-specific low back pain were recruited to test the feasibility of implementing the booster intervention. Less than three contact attempts were necessary to arrange the booster session, only one participant declined to participate. Participants perceived the session to be beneficial; on a 0 to 10 scale of perceived benefit, the average score recorded was 8.3 (SD 2.0). Clinicians also reported a moderate perceived benefit to the participant; the average score recorded by clinicians was 6.3 (SD 1.6).

CONCLUSION

We developed a step by step, simple booster intervention that was perceived to be beneficial to participants with chronic low back pain. The booster can feasibly be delivered remotely following a complex intervention.

Intervention Fidelity in Pain Pragmatic Trials for Nonpharmacologic Pain Management: Nuanced Considerations for Determining PRECIS-2 Flexibility in Delivery and Adherence

Nonpharmacological treatments are considered first-line pain management strategies, but they remain clinically underused. For years, pain-focused pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have generated evidence for the enhanced use of nonpharmacological interventions in routine clinical settings to help overcome implementation barriers. The Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) framework describes the degree of pragmatism across 9 key domains. Among these, "flexibility in delivery" and "flexibility in adherence," address a key goal of pragmatic research by tailoring approaches to settings in which people receive routine care. However, to maintain scientific and ethical rigor, PCTs must ensure that flexibility features do not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that the results are ethically and scientifically sound. Key principles of achieving this balance include clear definitions of intervention core components, intervention monitoring and documentation that is sufficient but not overly burdensome, provider training that meets the demands of delivering an intervention in real-world settings, and use of an ethical lens to recognize and avoid potential trial futility when necessary and appropriate. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents nuances to be considered when applying the PRECIS-2 framework to describe pragmatic clinical trials. Trials must ensure that patient-centered treatment flexibility does not compromise delivery of interventions as designed, such that measurement and analysis of treatment effects is reliable.

Conducting a Pragmatic Trial in Integrated Primary Care: Key Decision Points and Considerations

Pragmatic trials testing the effectiveness of interventions under “real world” conditions help bridge the research-to-practice gap. Such trial designs are optimal for studying the impact of implementation efforts, such as the effectiveness of integrated behavioral health clinicians in primary care settings. Formal pragmatic trials conducted in integrated primary care settings are uncommon, making it difficult for researchers to anticipate the potential pitfalls associated with balancing scientific rigor with the demands of routine clinical practice. This paper is based on our experience conducting the first phase of a large, multisite, pragmatic clinical trial evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of behavioral health consultants treating patients with chronic pain using a manualized intervention, brief cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (BCBT-CP). The paper highlights key choice points using the PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) tool. We discuss the dilemmas of pragmatic research that we faced and offer recommendations for aspiring integrated primary care pragmatic trialists.