Listening to Their Words: A Qualitative Analysis of Integrative Medicine Group Visits in an Urban Underserved Medical Setting

Determinants of implementation for group medical visits for patients with chronic pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite the critical need for comprehensive and effective chronic pain care, delivery of such care remains challenging. Group medical visits (GMVs) offer an innovative and efficient model for providing comprehensive care for patients with chronic pain. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) to implementing GMVs for adult patients with chronic pain.

METHODS

The review included peer-reviewed studies reporting findings on implementation of GMVs for chronic pain, inclusive of all study designs. Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched. Studies of individual appointments or group therapy were excluded. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to determine risk of bias. Data related to implementation determinants were extracted independently by two reviewers. Data synthesis was guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Thirty-three articles reporting on 25 studies met criteria for inclusion and included qualitative observational (n = 8), randomized controlled trial (n = 6), quantitative non-randomized (n = 9), quantitative descriptive (n = 3), and mixed methods designs (n = 7). The studies included in this review included a total of 2364 participants. Quality ratings were mixed, with qualitative articles receiving the highest quality ratings. Common multi-level determinants included the relative advantage of GMVs for chronic pain over other available models, the capability and motivation of clinicians, the cost of GMVs to patients and the health system, the need and opportunity of patients, the availability of resources and relational connections supporting recruitment and referral to GMVs within the clinic setting, and financing and policies within the outer setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-level factors determine the implementation of GMVs for chronic pain. Future research is needed to investigate these determinants more thoroughly and to develop and test implementation strategies addressing these determinants to promote the scale-up of GMVs for patients with chronic pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021231310 .

Improving Health for Older Adults With Pain Through Engagement: Protocol for Tailoring and Open Pilot Testing of a Mind-Body Activity Program Delivered Within Shared Medical Visits in an Underserved Community Clinic

BACKGROUND

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is prevalent and disabling among older adults in underserved communities. Psychosocial pain management is more effective than pharmacological treatment in older adults. However, underserved community clinics often lack psychosocial treatments, in part because of a lack of trained providers. Shared medical appointments, in which patients undergo brief medical evaluation, monitoring, counseling, and group support, are an efficacious and cost-effective method for chronic disease management in underserved clinics, reducing the need for specialized providers. However, shared medical visits are often ineffective for chronic pain, possibly owing to lack of inclusion of skills most relevant for older adults (eg, pacing to increase engagement in daily activities).

OBJECTIVE

We have described the protocol for the development and initial pilot effectiveness testing of the GetActive+ mind-body activity intervention for older adults with chronic pain. GetActive+ was adapted from GetActive, an evidence-based intervention that improved pain outcomes among mostly affluent White adults. We aim to establish the initial feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, and effectiveness of GetActive+ when delivered as part of shared medical appointments in a community clinic.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative focus groups and individual interviews with providers (n=25) and English-speaking older adults (aged ≥55 y; n=18) with chronic pain to understand the pain experience in this population, perceptions about intervention content, and barriers to and facilitators of intervention participation and implementation in this setting. Qualitative interviews with Spanish-speaking older adults are in progress and will inform a future open pilot of the intervention in Spanish. We are currently conducting an open pilot study with exit interviews in English (n=30 individuals in total). Primary outcomes are feasibility (≥75% of patients who are approached agree to participate), acceptability (≥75% of patients who enrolled complete 8 out of 10 sessions; qualitative), and fidelity (≥75% of session components are delivered as intended). Secondary outcomes include physical function-self-reported, performance based (6-minute walk test), and objective (step count)-and emotional function (depression and anxiety). Other assessments include putative mechanisms (eg, mindfulness and pain catastrophizing).

RESULTS

We began enrolling participants for the qualitative phase in November 2022 and the open pilot phase in May 2023. We completed the qualitative phase with providers and English-speaking patients, and the results are being analyzed using a hybrid, inductive-deductive approach. We conducted rapid analysis of these data to develop GetActive+ before the open pilot in English, including increasing readability and clarity of language, reducing the number of skills taught to increase time for individual check-ins and group participation, and increasing experiential exercises for skill uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a blueprint for the refinement of a mind-body activity intervention for older adults with chronic pain in underserved community clinics and for incorporation within shared medical visits. It will inform a future, fully powered, effectiveness-implementation trial of GetActive+ to help address the chronic pain epidemic among older adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05782231; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05782231.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/52117.

Qualitative Needs Assessment for the Development of Chronic Pain Group Medical Visits

Group medical visits (GMVs) for patients with chronic pain are becoming more accessible and have been shown to be successful in furthering patient education on multidisciplinary, nonopioid interventions. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that many group visit models lack sustainability due to recruitment issues and retention rates. Additionally, most of the studies surrounding GMVs are located in primarily urban health centers, potentially limiting their generalizability. This study aims to identify patient interest in and barriers to GMVs for chronic pain and to explore how chronic pain impacts daily lives for GMV content optimization in a nonurban population. Nineteen participants age 18 to 65 years participated in semistructured phone interviews to generate a thematic analysis. Participants received their care from family practitioners at a suburban multiclinic academic medical group and were being prescribed at least 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at the time of recruitment. Analysis generated two themes: (1) Participants expressed specific interest in GMVs with few barriers identified, and (2) Pain has a negative impact on mental health and most aspects daily life, creating a foundation for discussion in GMVs. Findings support significant patient interest in group medical visits for chronic pain, but careful planning is necessary to address patient needs, expectations, and barriers in order to ensure GMV sustainability.

Feasibility of Implementation Mapping for Integrative Medical Group Visits

Objectives: Implementation science is key to translating complementary and integrative health intervention research into practice as it can increase accessibility and affordability while maximizing patient health outcomes. The authors describe using implementation mapping to (1) identify barriers and facilitators impacting the implementation of an Integrative Medical Group Visit (IMGV) intervention in an outpatient setting with a high burden of patients with chronic pain and (2) select and develop implementation strategies utilizing theory and stakeholder input to address those barriers and facilitators. Design: The authors selected a packaged, evidence-based, integrative pain management intervention, the IMGV, to implement in an outpatient clinic with a high burden of patients with chronic pain. The authors used implementation mapping to identify implementation strategies for IMGV, considering theory and stakeholder input. Stakeholder interviews with clinic staff, faculty, and administrators (n = 15) were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Based on interview data, the authors identified administrators, physicians, nursing staff, and scheduling staff as key stakeholders involved in implementation. Barriers and facilitators focused on knowledge, buy-in, and operational procedures needed to successfully implement IMGV. The implementation team identified three cognitive influences on behavior that would impact performance: knowledge, outcome expectations, and self-efficacy; and three theoretical change methods: cue to participate, communication, and mobilization. Implementation strategies identified included identifying and preparing champions, participation in ongoing training, developing and distributing educational materials, and organizing clinician implementation team meetings. Conclusions: This study provides an example of the application of implementation mapping to identify theory-driven implementation strategies for IMGV. Implementation mapping is a feasible method that may be useful in providing a guiding structure for implementation teams as they employ implementation frameworks and select implementation strategies for integrative health interventions.

Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The term 'medically unexplained symptoms' is used to cover a wide range of persistent bodily complaints for which adequate examination and appropriate investigations do not reveal sufficiently explanatory structural or other specified pathologies. A wide range of interventions may be delivered to patients presenting with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Many of these therapies aim to change the behaviours of the individual who may have worsening symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

An evidence synthesis to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms delivered in primary care settings was undertaken. Barriers to and facilitators of the effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions from the perspective of patients and service providers were evaluated through qualitative review and realist synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Full search strategies were developed to identify relevant literature. Eleven electronic sources were searched. Eligibility criteria - for the review of clinical effectiveness, randomised controlled trials were sought. For the qualitative review, UK studies of any design were included. For the cost-effectiveness review, papers were restricted to UK studies reporting outcomes as quality-adjusted life-year gains. Clinical searches were conducted in November 2015 and December 2015, qualitative searches were conducted in July 2016 and economic searches were conducted in August 2016. The databases searched included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE. Updated searches were conducted in February 2019 and March 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult participants meeting the criteria for medically unexplained symptoms, including somatoform disorders, chronic unexplained pain and functional somatic syndromes.

INTERVENTIONS

Behavioural interventions were categorised into types. These included psychotherapies, exercise-based interventions, multimodal therapies (consisting of more than one intervention type), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support, guided self-help and general practitioner interventions, such as reattribution. Evidence synthesis: a network meta-analysis was conducted to allow a simultaneous comparison of all evaluated interventions in a single coherent analysis. Separate network meta-analyses were performed at three time points: end of treatment, short-term follow-up (< 6 months since the end of treatment) and long-term follow-up (≥ 6 months after the end of treatment). Outcomes included physical and psychological symptoms, physical functioning and impact of the illness on daily activities. Economic evaluation: within-trial estimates of cost-effectiveness were generated for the subset of studies where utility values (or quality-adjusted life-years) were reported or where these could be estimated by mapping from Short Form questionnaire-36 items or Short Form questionnaire-12 items outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies involving 9077 patients were included in the clinical effectiveness review. There was a large degree of heterogeneity both between and within intervention types, and the networks were sparse across all outcomes. At the end of treatment, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects when compared with usual care, in particular for improvement of specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTHI) standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.54 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.28 to 0.84], multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.19 to 0.89); and (2) fatigue: low-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBTLI) SMD 0.72 (95% CrI 0.27 to 1.21), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.87 (95% CrI 0.20 to 1.55), graded activity SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.93), multimodal SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.14 to 0.92)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety CBTHI SMD 0.52 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.96); (2) depression CBTHI SMD 0.80 (95% CrI 0.26 to 1.38); and (3) emotional distress other psychotherapy SMD 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05 to 1.13), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.66 (95% CrI 0.18 to 1.28) and sport/exercise SMD 0.49 (95% CrI 0.03 to 1.01)]. At short-term follow-up, behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific physical symptoms [(1) pain: CBTHI SMD 0.73 (95% CrI 0.10 to 1.39); (2) fatigue: CBTLI SMD 0.62 (95% CrI 0.11 to 1.14), relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.51 (95% CrI 0.06 to 1.00)] and psychological outcomes [(1) anxiety: CBTHI SMD 0.74 (95% CrI 0.14 to 1.34); (2) depression: CBTHI SMD 0.93 (95% CrI 0.37 to 1.52); and (3) emotional distress: relaxation/stretching/social support/emotional support SMD 0.82 (95% CrI 0.02 to 1.65), multimodal SMD 0.43 (95% CrI 0.04 to 0.91)]. For physical functioning, only multimodal therapy showed beneficial effects: end-of-treatment SMD 0.33 (95% CrI 0.09 to 0.59); and short-term follow-up SMD 0.78 (95% CrI 0.23 to 1.40). For impact on daily activities, CBTHI was the only behavioural intervention to show beneficial effects [end-of-treatment SMD 1.30 (95% CrI 0.59 to 2.00); and short-term follow-up SMD 2.25 (95% CrI 1.34 to 3.16)]. Few effects remained at long-term follow-up. General practitioner interventions showed no significant beneficial effects for any outcome. No intervention group showed conclusive beneficial effects for measures of symptom load (somatisation). A large degree of heterogeneity was found across individual studies in the assessment of cost-effectiveness. Several studies suggested that the interventions produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For those interventions that generated quality-adjusted life-year gains, the mid-point incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £1397 to £129,267, but, where the mid-point ICER fell below £30,000, the exploratory assessment of uncertainty suggested that it may be above £30,000.

LIMITATIONS

Sparse networks meant that it was not possible to conduct a metaregression to explain between-study differences in effects. Results were not consistent within intervention type, and there were considerable differences in characteristics between studies of the same type. There were moderate to high levels of statistical heterogeneity. Separate analyses were conducted for three time points and, therefore, analyses are not repeated-measures analyses and do not account for correlations between time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions showed some beneficial effects for specific medically unexplained symptoms, but no one behavioural intervention was effective across all medically unexplained symptoms. There was little evidence that these interventions are effective for measures of symptom load (somatisation). General practitioner-led interventions were not shown to be effective. Considerable heterogeneity in interventions, populations and sparse networks mean that results should be interpreted with caution. The relationship between patient and service provider is perceived to play a key role in facilitating a successful intervention. Future research should focus on testing the therapeutic effects of the general practitioner-patient relationship within trials of behavioural interventions, and explaining the observed between-study differences in effects within the same intervention type (e.g. with more detailed reporting of defined mechanisms of the interventions under study).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025520.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of an Integrative Pain Management Program in a Primary Care Safety-Net Clinic

OBJECTIVE

To design, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive Integrative Pain Management Program (IPMP) for patients with chronic pain in a safety-net primary care clinic.

DESIGN

We used a quality improvement "Plan Do Study Act" (PDSA) framework to design, refine, and evaluate an integrative chronic pain program.

SETTING

An urban federally qualified health center located in a community with high rates of chronic pain, substance use, and opioid overdose.

SUBJECTS

Eligible participants included individuals with pain for greater than 3 months who were prescribed opioid therapy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We designed IPMP using a PDSA framework that promotes continuous evaluation and adaptation of the program to meet the needs of the clinical system. We assessed feasibility and acceptability with program referrals and attendance and evaluated program satisfaction.

RESULTS

The IPMP delivered a 12-week group-based intervention that involved group support, education on pain etiology and treatments, movement-based interventions, mindfulness-based therapies, acupuncture, and massage therapy. One hundred forty-six patients were referred to IPMP; 58 individuals participated in one of the first three cohorts of the program. Sixty-two percent of participants attended at least half of the sessions. Staff and participants reported high levels of satisfaction with IPMP and demand for longitudinal services.

CONCLUSIONS

An IPMP delivered within a safety-net primary care clinic could be implemented in a way feasible and acceptable to staff and participants with the support of the local health care system. The application of a PDSA cycle allowed for rigorous implementation and evaluation of a multimodal pain program. Quality improvement frameworks are a strategy to improve and expand the delivery of high-quality patient-centered integrative pain treatments.

Characteristics and Components of Medical Group Visits for Chronic Health Conditions: A Systematic Scoping Review

Objectives: Chronic health conditions are a major challenge to the health care system. Medical Group Visits (MGVs) are a valuable health care delivery model used in a variety of medical settings and patient populations. We conducted a systematic scoping review of MGV research literature for chronic health conditions to summarize the characteristics and individual components of MGVs in the United States of America and Canada. Design: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping review methodology and searched five databases using nine widely used MGV-related terms. Subjects: We included studies conducted in the United States and Canada, whose participants were >18 years old and attended an MGV conducted in a medical setting by a billable health care provider. We excluded groups related to diabetes, pregnancy, and cancer. Results: Of 3777 studies identified, we found 55 eligible studies of which 9 are randomized controlled trials and 46 are observational studies. The majority of studies were conducted in academic medical centers, were observational in design, and recruited patients using physician referrals. The three most frequently studied groups include a combination of several chronic conditions (n = 12), chronic pain conditions (n = 10), and cardiovascular disease (n = 9). Curriculum components included didactics (n = 55), experiential activities (n = 27), and socializing components (n = 12). Didactic areas include (1) medical topics such as symptoms management (n = 27) of which 14 included pain management, and (2) lifestyle/educational component (n = 33) that comprised of talks on nutrition (n = 29), exercise (n = 20), stress (n = 16), and sleep (n = 10). The top integrative medicine (IM) modalities (n = 13) included: mindfulness techniques (n = 8), meditation (n = 6), and yoga (n = 5). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the recruitment, implementation, curriculum components, and outcomes reported. Conclusion: The MGV is a model of patient-centered care that has captured the attention of researchers. IM modalities are well represented in the curriculum components of MGVs. Further investigation into the components identified by this study, may help in better targeting of group interventions to patients and contexts, where it is most likely to be effective.

Integrative Group Medical Visits: A National Scoping Survey of Safety-Net Clinics

Purpose: Integrative group medical visits (IGMVs) aim to increase access to complementary and integrative health care, which is particularly relevant for low-income people. We sought to describe IGMV programs in US safety-net clinics through a survey of providers. Methods: An online and paper survey was conducted to collect data on the use of complementary health approaches and characteristics of IGMV programs. We recruited a purposive sample of safety-net clinicians via national meetings and listservs. Results: Fifty-seven clinicians reported on group medical visits. Forty percent worked in federally qualified health centers, 57% in safety-net or teaching hospitals, 23% in other settings such as free clinics. Thirty-seven respondents in 11 states provided care in IGMVs, most commonly for chronic pain and diabetes. Nutrition (70%), mindfulness/meditation/breathing (59%), and tai chi/yoga/other movement practices (51%) were the most common treatment approaches in IGMVs. Conclusion: Safety-net institutions in 11 states offered IGMVs to treat a range of chronic conditions. IGMVs are an innovative model to improve access to non-pharmacologic approaches to chronic illness care and health promotion. They may advance health equity by serving patients negatively impacted by health and health care disparities.

The perceptions and experiences of osteopathic treatment among cancer patients in palliative care: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

This research aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of cancer patients receiving osteopathic treatment as a complementary therapy when it is used in addition to conventional treatment for cancer pain.

METHODS

This qualitative study employed semi structured interviews of cancer patients in a palliative care unit in Lyon, France, who received treatment from an osteopath alongside their conventional cancer treatment. We analysed data using grounded theory and qualitative methods.

RESULTS

We interviewed 16 patients. The themes identified through the analysis included a low awareness of osteopathy among the population and an accompanying high level of misconceptions. The benefits of osteopathy were described as more than just the manual treatments with participants valuing osteopathy as a holistic, meditative, and non-pharmaceutical approach. Participants also described the osteopathic treatments as assisting with a range of cancer-related health complaints such as pain, fatigue, and sleep problems. Offering osteopathic treatment at an accessible location at low or no cost were identified by participants as enablers to the continued use of osteopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study provides preliminary data which suggests, when delivered alongside existing medical care, osteopathy may have health benefits for patients with complex conditions such as cancer.