Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on nonpharmacological pain management trials in military and veteran healthcare settings: an evaluation informed by implementation science

Utility of the PICOTS framework to assess clinical trial disruptions: monitoring the impact of COVID-19 in the Pain Management Collaboratory

OBJECTIVE

Despite careful design of clinical trials, unforeseen disruptions can arise. The PICOTS (Patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timepoints, Setting) framework was used to assess disruptions in pain management research imposed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) within the Pain Management Collaboratory.

METHODS

Rapid qualitative methods were employed to identify trial disruptions due to COVID-19 in 11 pragmatic clinical trials of nonpharmacological approaches for pain management. The PICOTS framework was applied by investigators of 4 Collaboratory trials selected to cover 4 types of trial designs (individually randomized, stepped-wedge, cluster, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial-SMART). Interviews with the lead investigators of these trials were completed, and findings were presented/discussed on video calls over a 6-month period (March-August 2021) from which themes/lessons learned were identified and consensus reached.

RESULTS

Investigators indicated that patient populations remained generally stable. A major COVID-19 trial disruption was moving from in-person to virtual care affecting delivery of interventions/comparators and outcome assessments. The resultant mixed-mode of care delivery created issues with intervention fidelity posing analytic challenges. COVID-19 also induced ongoing/intermittent delays and other barriers to accessing primary and specialty care at some facilities, creating research capacity issues affecting delivery of experimental interventions requiring sustained, reliable participation of clinical partners. Study designs most affected by COVID-19 were stepped-wedge (intervention/comparator changing over time), cluster (increased site variability inflating intracluster correlation), and SMART (second-stage randomizations disrupted); stratified individually-randomized trials were less vulnerable because of individual-level randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

PICOTS provides a framework for assessing the impact of trial disruptions in a structured manner. Given the COVID-19 experience, it is important for researchers to consider the potential impact of future trial disruptions during study planning.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on participants in pragmatic clinical trials for chronic pain: implications for trial outcomes and beyond

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic had profound effects on society, including those living with chronic pain. This study sought to examine pandemic impacts on individuals enrolled in pragmatic clinical trials focused on nonpharmacological treatments for chronic pain.

METHODS

We evaluated responses to a questionnaire on COVID-19 impacts that had been administered to participants (n=2024) during study enrollment in 3 pragmatic clinical trials for chronic pain treatment. All trials were part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-Department of Defense (DOD) Pain Management Collaboratory. COVID-19-related impacts on access to health care, mental health, finances, ability to meet basic needs, and social support were assessed.

RESULTS

Pandemic impacts were found in all domains assessed, including access to health care, mental and emotional health, ability to meet basic needs, finances, and social support. Impacts varied by demographic and clinical characteristics. The participants most negatively impacted by the pandemic were younger, Black or Latino, female, more educated, and unemployed and had screened positive for depression. No impact differences were found with regard to alcohol use disorder screenings or a prior history of COVID-19. Higher levels of pain were associated with worse pandemic impacts, and negative impacts declined over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative impacts of the pandemic on individuals living with chronic pain cut across aspects of life that are also central to effective pain management, including access to health care, social support, and mental and emotional health, with differential impacts found across key demographic and clinical factors. These findings should yield consideration of pandemic impacts in clinical practice and as moderating effects of treatment outcomes in clinical trials conducted during the pandemic.

Outcomes of a Remotely Delivered Complementary and Integrative Health Partnered Intervention to Improve Chronic Pain and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Nonpharmacological interventions for veterans are needed to help them manage chronic pain and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Complementary and integrative health (CIH) interventions such as Mission Reconnect (MR) seek to provide veterans with the option of a partnered, self-directed intervention that teaches CIH skills remotely to support symptom management.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the physical, psychological, and social outcomes of a self-directed mobile- and web-based CIH intervention for veterans with comorbid chronic pain and PTSD and their partners and qualitatively examine their MR user experience.

METHODS

A sample of veteran-partner dyads (n=364) were recruited to participate in a mixed methods multisite waitlist control randomized controlled trial to measure physical, psychological, and social outcomes, with pain as the primary outcome and PTSD, depression, stress, sleep, quality of life, and relationships as secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models were constructed for primary and secondary patient-reported outcomes. The quantitative analysis was triangulated using qualitative interviews from a subsample of dyads (n=35) to examine participants' perceptions of their program experience.

RESULTS

Dyads were randomized to 2 groups: intervention (MR; 140/364, 38.5%) and waitlist control (136/364, 37.4%). No significant change was observed in overall pain, sleep, PTSD, quality of life, relationship satisfaction, overall self-compassion, or compassion for others. A significant reduction in pain interference in mood (P=.008) and sleep (P=.008) was observed among the veteran MR group that was not observed in the waitlist control group. We also observed a positive effect of the MR intervention on a reduction in negative affect associated with pain (P=.049), but this effect did not exceed the adjusted significance threshold (P=.01). Significant improvements were also observed for partners in the affection (P=.007) and conflict (P=.001) subdomains of the consensus and satisfaction domains. In contrast to quantitative results, qualitative data indicated that intervention impacts included improved sleep and reduced pain, anxiety, and stress and, in contrast to the survey data, overall improvement in PTSD symptoms and social relationships. Participants' overall impressions of MR highlight usability and navigation, perceptions on packaging and content, and barriers to and facilitators of MR use.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive CIH-based modalities can be delivered using web and mobile apps but should be developed and tailored using established best practices. MR may be beneficial for veterans with pain and PTSD and their partners. Further pragmatic trials and implementation efforts are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03593772; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03593772.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/13666.

Using brief reflections to capture and evaluate end-user engagement: a case example using the COMPASS study

BACKGROUND

Use of participatory research methods is increasing in research trials. Once partnerships are established with end-users, there is less guidance about processes research teams can use to successfully incorporate end-user feedback. The current study describes the use of a brief reflections process to systematically examine and evaluate the impact of end-user feedback on study conduct.

METHODS

The Comparative Effectiveness of Trauma-Focused and Non-Trauma- Focused Treatment Strategies for PTSD among those with Co-Occurring SUD (COMPASS) study was a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of trauma-focused psychotherapy versus non-trauma-focused psychotherapy for Veterans with co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder who were entering substance use treatment within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We developed and paired a process of "brief reflections" with our end-user engagement methods as part of a supplemental evaluation of the COMPASS study engagement plan. Brief reflections were 30-minute semi-structured discussions with the COMPASS Team following meetings with three study engagement panels about feedback received regarding study issues. To evaluate the impact of panel feedback, 16 reflections were audio-recorded, transcribed, rapidly analyzed, and integrated with other study data sources.

RESULTS

Brief reflections revealed that the engagement panels made recommended changes in eight areas: enhancing recruitment; study assessment completion; creating uniformity across Study Coordinators; building Study Coordinator connection to Veteran participants; mismatch between study procedures and clinical practice; therapist skill with patients with active substance use; therapist burnout; and dissemination of study findings. Some recommendations positively impact study conduct while others had mixed impact. Reflections were iterative and led to emergent processes that included revisiting previously discussed topics, cross-pollination of ideas across panels, and sparking solutions amongst the Team when the panels did not make any recommendations or recommendations were not feasible.

CONCLUSIONS

When paired with end-user engagement methods, brief reflections can facilitate systematic examination of end-user input, particularly when the engagement strategy is robust. Reflections offer a forum of accountability for researchers to give careful thought to end-user recommendations and make timely improvements to the study conduct. Reflections can also facilitate evaluation of these recommendations and reveal end-user-driven strategies that can effectively improve study conduct.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04581434) on October 9, 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04581434?term=NCT04581434&draw=2&rank=1 .

Pain Care Disparities and the Use of Virtual Care Among Racial-Ethnic Minority Groups During COVID-19

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

COVID-19 led to an unprecedented reliance on virtual modalities to maintain care continuity for patients living with chronic pain. We examined whether there were disparities in virtual specialty pain care for racial-ethnic minority groups during COVID-19.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a retrospective national cohort study with two comparison groups: primary care patients with chronic pain seen immediately prior to COVID-19 (3/1/19-2/29/20) (N = 1,649,053) and a cohort of patients seen in the year prior (3/1/18-2/28-19; n = 1,536,954).

MAIN MEASURES

We assessed use of telehealth (telephone or video) specialty pain care, in-person care specialty pain care, and any specialty pain care for both groups at 6 months following cohort inclusion. We used quasi-Poisson regressions to test associations between patient race and ethnicity and receipt of care.

KEY RESULTS

Prior to COVID-19, there were Black-White (RR = 0.64, 95% CI [0.62, 0.67]) and Asian-White (RR = 0.63, 95% CI [0.54, 0.75]) disparities in telehealth use, and these lessened during COVID-19 (Black-White: RR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.73, 0.77], Asian-White: RR = 0.81, 95% CI [0.74, 0.89]) but did not disappear. Individuals identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native used telehealth less than White individuals during early COVID-19 (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.85, 1.13] to RR = 0.87, 95% CI [0.79, 0.96]). Hispanic/Latinx individuals were less likely than non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals to use telehealth prior to COVID-19 but more likely during early COVID-19 (RR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.66, 0.75] to RR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.02, 1.09]). Disparities in virtual pain care occurred over the backdrop of overall decreased specialty pain care during the early phase of the pandemic (raw decrease of n = 17,481 specialty care encounters overall from pre-COVID to COVID-era), including increased disparities in any VA specialty pain care for Black (RR = 0.81, 95% CI [0.80, 0.83] to RR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.77, 0.80]) and Asian (RR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.86, 0.97] to RR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.82, 0.94]) individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in virtual specialty pain care were smaller during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic than prior to the pandemic but did not disappear entirely, despite the rapid growth in telehealth. Targeted efforts to increase access to specialty pain care need to be concentrated among racial-ethnic minority groups.