Education as Treatment for Chronic Pain in Survivors of Torture and Other Violent Events in Cambodia: Experiences With Implementation of a Group-Based “Pain School” and Evaluation of Its Effect in a Pilot Study

Treatments and interventions addressing chronic somatic pain in torture survivors: A systematic review

Torture survivors experience chronic, somatic pain that may be exacerbated by environmental, social, and structural factors that extend beyond immediate traumatic events and diagnoses. We conducted a systematic review of research describing the types and efficacy of treatments for chronic somatic pain in a global population of torture survivors. In this systematic review, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE (1974 to present), and PubMed. We used all appropriate controlled vocabulary and keywords for interventions and treatments for chronic somatic pain in torture survivors. The population included survivors of torture of any age and in any country. Outcomes included pain relief, pain intensity, distress level, and quality of life. Four authors participated in screening, full-text review, and quality assessment, with each title and abstract being independently reviewed by two authors. This study is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. We included six pre-post intervention studies and four pilot or modified randomized controlled trials (RCTs), for a total of ten studies included in the analysis. Different combinations of interventions targeted pain reduction in refugees, the majority of whom were torture survivors as the primary (n = 1) or secondary (n = 9) outcome. Sample sizes varied from eight to 470 participants. We identified three main types of interventions: multimodal combined, manual therapy, and specific types of talk therapy. Five studies demonstrated positive outcomes on pain and its intensity, three reported no effect, and two had mixed outcomes. Pain in torture survivors is often considered a symptom secondary to mental health illness and not targeted directly. Instead, combined interventions are mainly directed at posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Most studies noted promising preliminary results and plans to conduct RCTs to increase the reproducibility and quality of their pilot data.

Regional vs global physical therapy interventions to treat chronic pain in survivors of trauma: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A history of traumatic life events is associated with chronic pain in later life. Physical therapists utilize a variety of methods to treat pain, however, they have struggled to find effective interventions to improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare impairment-based, regional (REGION-PT) physical therapy (PT) to a global (GLOBAL-PT) model consisting of pain neuroscience education, graded motor imagery, and exercise for adults with chronic pain and history of trauma.

DESIGN

Randomized Controlled Trial.

METHODS

Adults ≥ 18 years of age with chronic pain and a history of ≥1 trauma identified through the Life Events Checklist received the allocated intervention once a week for six weeks. Treatment effects were assessed using linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight participants completed the trial. There were no difference in outcomes between groups. There were significant interactions between race and intervention. Both interventions were associated with improvements in pain interference for white participants, but non-white participants experienced improvement only with GLOBAL-PT. Regardless of allocation, participants improved in physical function, six of the PROMIS-29 domains, and in pain interference measures.

CONCLUSION

Both interventions are reasonable strategies for individuals with chronic pain and a history of trauma.

Development of a pain neuroscience education program for post-traumatic stress disorder and pain

Introduction: Individuals with co-morbid post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and pain have higher disability, pain, and pain catastrophizing beliefs than patients without PTSD. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) may be an effective tool to help those with PTSD and pain reduce maladaptive beliefs about pain. The purpose of this paper is to report the development and evaluation of a PNE curriculum for participants with PTSD and pain. Methods: After writing an initial draft of PNE for PTSD and pain, a panel of medical experts in PNE, PTSD, and rehabilitation reviewed the booklet. After addressing recommendations from the medical panel (n = 29), individuals with (n = 13) and without (n = 20) PTSD reviewed the booklet. Results: Overall, 89% of participants recommended the PNE booklet and 90% thought it would help patients with PTSD and pain. Although patients with PTSD rated the PNE booklet more critically than other participants, a particular support group (n = 4) rated the PNE booklet significantly different (p < .05) than remaining participants with PTSD (n = 9). Individuals with PTSD and pain were able to comprehend the PNE booklet at a comparable rate to an expert medical panel and participants without PTSD after adjusting for education levels (p = .12). Conclusions: Many patients with PTSD and pain avoid painful activities because they believe they are harmful. This research demonstrates that individuals with PTSD and pain can comprehend PNE that challenges these beliefs. The PNE curriculum developed by this research may provide a logical explanation for the link between PTSD symptoms and pain and should be tested for clinical effectiveness.

Interventions for treating persistent pain in survivors of torture

BACKGROUND

Persistent (chronic) pain is a frequent complaint in survivors of torture, particularly but not exclusively pain in the musculoskeletal system. Torture survivors may have no access to health care; where they do, they may not be recognised when they present, and the care available often falls short of their needs. There is a tendency in state and non-governmental organisations' services to focus on mental health, with poor understanding of persistent pain, while survivors may have many other legal, welfare, and social problems that take precedence over health care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of interventions for treating persistent pain and associated problems in survivors of torture.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, and PsycINFO, from database inception to 1 February 2017. We also searched trials registers and grey literature databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of interventions of any type (medical, physical, psychological) compared with any alternative intervention or no intervention, and with a pain outcome. Studies needed to have at least 10 participants in each arm for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 3578 titles in total after deduplication; we selected 24 full papers to assess for eligibility. We requested data from two completed trials without published results.We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three small published studies (88 participants) met the inclusion criteria, but one had been retracted from publication because of ethical problems concerned with confidentiality and financial irregularities. Since these did not affect the data, the study was retained in this review. Despite the search including any intervention, only two types were represented in the eligible studies: two trials used cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with biofeedback versus waiting list on unspecified persistent pain (58 participants completed treatment), and one examined the effect of complex manual therapy versus self-treatment on low back pain (30 participants completed treatment). Excluded studies were largely either not RCTs or did not report pain as an outcome.There was no difference for the outcome of pain relief at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 58 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -1.23 to 1.12) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.23) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial also reported no difference between complex manual therapy and self-treatment (30 participants; SMD -0.48, 95% CI -9.95 to 0.35) (very low quality evidence). Two studies reported dropouts, one with partial information on reasons; none of the studies reported adverse effects.There was no information from any study on the outcomes of use of analgesics or quality of life.Reduction in disability showed no difference at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 57 participants; SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.39) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD 0, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.74) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial reported superiority of complex manual therapy over self-treatment for reducing disability (30 participants; SMD -1.10, 95% CI - 1.88 to -0.33) (very low quality evidence).Reduction in distress showed no difference at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 58 participants; SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.60) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.99) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial reported superiority of complex manual therapy over self-treatment for reducing distress (30 participants; SMD -1.26, 95% CI - 2.06 to -0.47) (very low quality evidence).The risk of bias was considered high given the small number of trials, small size of trials, and the likelihood that each was underpowered for the comparisons it reported. We primarily downgraded the quality of the evidence due to small numbers in trials, lack of intention-to-treat analyses, high unaccounted dropout, lack of detail on study methods, and CIs around effect sizes that included no effect, benefit, and harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any intervention for persistent pain in survivors of torture.

Testimony Therapy With Ritual: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Testimony therapy can provide low-cost, brief, simple, and culturally adaptable psychosocial services in low-income countries (Agger, Raghuvanshi, Khan, Polatin, & Laursen, 2009). Nonetheless, there have been no well-controlled studies of testimony therapy. We report the analyses of a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effectiveness of testimony therapy plus a culturally adapted ceremony in reducing mental health symptoms among Khmer Rouge torture survivors from across Cambodia. Using multilevel modeling, we compared symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression between a treatment (n = 45) and a control group (n = 43) at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. We found that testimony therapy plus ceremony significantly reduced symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (d = 0.49), anxiety (d = 0.44), and depression (d = 0.53).

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Pain from Torture and War

Pain care for survivors of torture and of war shows similarities and marked differences. For both, pain can be complex with unfamiliar presentations and the pains hard to assign to known disorders. For many survivors, pain and associated disability are overshadowed by psychological distress, often by post-traumatic stress symptoms that can be frightening and isolating. Pain medicine in war can exemplify best techniques and organisation, reducing suffering, but many military veterans have persistent pain that undermines their readjustment. By contrast, survivors of torture rarely have any acute health care; their risk for developing chronic pain is high. Even when settled as refugees in a well-resourced country, their access to healthcare may be restricted. Recent evidence is reviewed that informs assessment and treatment of pain in both groups, with the broader context of psychological distress addressed at the end. Clinical and research implications are briefly outlined.