Musculoskeletal pain stakeholder engagement and partnership development: determining patient-centered research priorities

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Decisional needs assessment for patient-centred pain care in Canada: the DECIDE-PAIN study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The 2021 Action Plan for Pain from the Canadian Pain Task Force advocates for patient-centred pain care at all levels of healthcare across provinces. Shared decision-making is the crux of patient-centred care. Implementing the action plan will require innovative shared decision-making interventions, specifically following the disruption of chronic pain care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first step in this endeavour is to assess current decisional needs (ie, decisions most important to them) of Canadians with chronic pain across their care pathways.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

DesignGrounded in patient-oriented research approaches, we will perform an online population-based survey across the ten Canadian provinces. We will report methods and data following the CROSS reporting guidelines.SamplingThe Léger Marketing company will administer the online population-based survey to its representative panel of 500 000 Canadians to recruit 1646 adults (age ≥18 years old) with chronic pain according to the definition by the International Association for the Study of Pain (eg, pain ≥12 weeks). ContentBased on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, the self-administered survey has been codesigned with patients and contain six core domains: (1) healthcare services, consultation and postpandemic needs, (2) difficult decisions experienced, (3) decisional conflict, (4) decisional regret, (5) decisional needs and (6) sociodemographic characteristics. We will use several strategies such as random sampling to improve survey quality. AnalysisWe will perform descriptive statistical analysis. We will identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict and decision regret using multivariate analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (project #2022-4645). We will codesign knowledge mobilisation products with research patient partners (eg, graphical summaries and videos). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences to inform the development of innovative shared decision-making interventions for Canadians with chronic pain.

"Listen to me, learn from me": a priority setting partnership for shaping interdisciplinary pain training to strengthen chronic pain care

ABSTRACT

What are the care-seeking priorities of people living with chronic pain and carers and how can these shape interdisciplinary workforce training to improve high-value pain care? Phase 1: Australian people living with chronic pain (n = 206; 90% female) and carers (n = 10; 40% female) described their pain care priorities (eDelphi, round 1). A coding framework was inductively derived from 842 pain care priorities (9 categories, 52 priorities), including validation; communication; multidisciplinary approaches; holistic care; partnerships; practitioner knowledge; self-management; medicines; and diagnosis. Phase 2: In eDelphi round 2, panellists (n = 170; valid responses) rated the importance (1 = less important; 9 = more important) of the represented framework. In parallel, cross-discipline health professionals (n = 267; 75% female) rated the importance of these same priorities. Applying the RAND-UCLA method (panel medians: 1-3: "not important," 4-6: "equivocal," or 7-9: "important"), "important" items were retained where the panel median score was >7 with panel agreement ≥70%, with 44 items (84.6%) retained. Specific workforce training targets included the following: empathic validation; effective, respectful, safe communication; and ensuring genuine partnerships in coplanning personalised care. Panellists and health professionals agreed or strongly agreed (95.7% and 95.2%, respectively) that this framework meaningfully reflected the importance in care seeking for pain. More than 74% of health professionals were fairly or extremely confident in their ability to support care priorities for 6 of 9 categories (66.7%). Phase 3: An interdisciplinary panel (n = 5) mapped an existing foundation-level workforce training program against the framework, identifying gaps and training targets. Recommendations were determined for framework adoption to genuinely shape, from a partnership perspective, Australian interdisciplinary pain training.

Participatory research: a Priority Setting Partnership for chronic musculoskeletal pain in Denmark

OBJECTIVES

Patient and stakeholder engagements in research have increasingly gained attention in healthcare and healthcare-related research. A common and rigorous approach to establish research priorities based on input from people and stakeholders is the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA-PSP). The aim of this study was to establish research priorities for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain by engaging with people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives to people living with chronic MSK pain, healthcare professionals (HCP), and researchers working with chronic MSK pain.

METHODS

This JLA-PSP included a nation-wide survey in Denmark, an interim prioritisation, and an online consensus building workshop. The information gained from this was the basis for developing the final list of specific research priorities within chronic MSK pain.

RESULTS

In the initial survey, 1010 respondents (91% people living with chronic MSK pain/relatives, 9% HCPs/researchers) submitted 3121 potential questions. These were summarised into 19 main themes and 36 sub-themes. In the interim prioritisation exercise, 51% people living with pain/relatives and 49% HCPs/researchers reduced the list to 33 research questions prior to the final priority setting workshop. 23 participants attended the online workshop (12 people/relatives, 10 HCPs, and 1 researcher) who reached consensus for the most important research priorities after two rounds of discussion of each question.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified several specific research questions generated by people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives, HCPs, and researchers. The stakeholders proposed prioritization of the healthcare system's ability to support patients, focus on developing coherent pathways between sectors and education for both patients and HCP. These research questions can form the basis for future studies, funders, and be used to align research with end-users' priorities.

Perceptions and Experiences of Individuals With Neck Pain: A Systematic Critical Review of Qualitative Studies With Meta-Summary and Meta-Synthesis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at exploring the perspectives and experiences of individuals with neck pain by synthesizing all available qualitative studies.

METHODS

A systematic, qualitative meta-summary and meta-synthesis was conducted following the 5-step methodology proposed by Sandelowski and Barroso. A systematic search of 9 electronic databases was conducted in May 2021. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the meta-synthesis for a total of 103 participants (73 women). Eleven categories were identified as belonging to 3 main themes: physical ("My neck has gone wrong"); psychological ("I am worried about my recovery"); and social ("Pain limits my life"). In the physical theme, the categories with the highest frequency were symptoms (67%) followed by body perception (44%). The psychological theme frequencies from highest to lowest were psychological consequences (100%), coping strategies (100%), mindset (67%), expectations from health care professionals (44%), and gender influence (22%). In the social theme, frequencies from highest to lowest were social relationships (56%), work, and activities of daily living and physical activity (44%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

An individual's experience with neck pain is a multidimensional phenomenon in which physical, psychological, and social dimensions influence each other. These findings suggested that health care professionals should be aware of recognizing and evaluating all of the individual's experiences to offer a truly patient-centered care pathway.

IMPACT

This qualitative meta-synthesis responded to a call to action to explore perspectives and experiences of individuals with neck pain. These findings can provide crucial guidance for clinicians as they plan and implement evidence-based recommendations for neck pain.

Co-creating the Patient Partner Guide by a Multiple Chronic Conditions Team of Patients, Clinicians, and Researchers: Observational Report

BACKGROUND

Engaging patients as partners can influence research, with rewards and deterrents. The authors are researchers and patient co-investigators who collaborated on a comparative effectiveness, randomized controlled study of a structured quality improvement (QI) process to improve behavioral health and primary care integration for people managing multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Patient co-investigators responded to a gap in available resources to support study clinics in partnering with their own patients in QI and co-created the Patient Partner Guide (PPG).

OBJECTIVE

Describe the development of the PPG, its use by clinics undertaking the QI project, and research team partnerships.

DESIGN

Observational report of study intervention component.

PARTICIPANTS

Diverse patients and family members managing MCC and members of their primary care clinics.

INTERVENTION

The PPG component of the study intervention is a five-step workbook providing practical tools and resources to sustain partnerships across clinic QI team members, including patient partners. The process of developing the PPG relied on relationship-building tools that were iteratively assessed, practiced, improved, and incorporated into the PPG under the leadership of patient co-investigators.

MAIN MEASURES

Observations related to PPG use and patient partner inclusion in clinic QI; impact on the research team.

KEY RESULTS

Of 20 clinics, 6 engaged patients as full partners on QI teams. Clinics found resistance in partnering and challenges in using the PPG but valued the material and their partners' contributions. Similarly, engagement of patient co-investigators in research brought a shift in perspective to team members. The PPG is available and was adapted for use by research teams.

CONCLUSIONS

Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in research can be transformative and productive. Building relationships through meaningful work benefits others, and in turn, the research process. This approach can enhance clinical care QI and may result in substantial contributions to the conduct of research.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02868983.

American Physical Therapy Association Clinical Practice Guideline Implementation for Neck and Low Back Pain in Outpatient Physical Therapy: A Nonrandomized, Cross-sectional Stepped-Wedge Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a multifaceted implementation strategy for American Physical Therapy Association neck and low back pain clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was associated with changes in clinician and patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional stepped-wedge pilot study.

METHODS

Physical therapy clinics (n = 9) were allocated to 1 of 4 clusters that varied by CPG implementation timing. Clinics crossed over from usual care (control) to CPG implementation (intervention) every 8 weeks and ended with a 24-week follow-up period. Implementation outcomes were measured at the clinician (perspectives and behaviors) and patient (pain and disability outcomes) levels. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize clinician perspectives and behaviors. Generalized linear mixed models were used to analyze patient-level outcomes data (pain and disability) and total number of physical therapy visits.

RESULTS

Improvements in several clinician perspectives about CPGs were observed 8 weeks after training and sustained at 16 weeks (P<.05), although it is unclear whether these changes were meaningful. Training on CPGs was relevant to physical therapists and more acceptable at 16 weeks (P<.05). In a random sample (n = 764/1994, 38.3%), the overall rate of CPG classification was 65.0% (n = 497/764), and CPG intervention concordance was 71.2% (n = 354/497). Implementation of a CPG was not associated with final pain and disability scores (P>.05) but was associated with an approximate increase of 8% in total visits.

CONCLUSION

Our multifaceted implementation strategy was associated with statistical changes in clinician perspectives and behaviors, but not in patient outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(2):113-123. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10545.

Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

This scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health-as previous reviews have done-but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.

RESULTS

The scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.

CONCLUSION

By mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.

The healthcare buffet: preferences in the clinical decision-making process for patients with musculoskeletal pain

The preferences a person has for care are associated with outcomes for patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain conditions. These include preferences for differing levels of involvement in the decision-making process, preferences for the provider attributes, and preferences for particular interventions. In this paper, we discuss these various forms of preference, as well as how they influence clinical care within shared decision-making frameworks. We also present a conceptual framing for how patient preferences can be incorporated in clinical decision-making by orthopedic manual physical therapists. Finally, research implications for interpreting findings from clinical studies are discussed.