Impact of a multidisciplinary pain management program on patient care utilization and cost of care

Integrated pain care models and the importance of aligning stakeholder values

Sustained widespread deployment of clinically and cost-effective models of integrated pain care could be bolstered by optimally aligning shared stakeholder values.

Protocol for a pragmatic trial testing a self-directed lifestyle program targeting weight loss among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (POWER Trial)

BACKGROUND

Obesity comprises the single greatest reversible risk factor for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Despite the potential of lifestyle-based weight loss services to improve OSA severity and symptoms, these programs have limited reach. POWER is a pragmatic trial of a remote self-directed weight loss care among patients with OSA.

METHODS

POWER randomizes 696 patients with obesity (BMI 30-45 kg/m2) and recent diagnosis or re-confirmation of OSA 1:1 to either a self-directed weight loss intervention or usual care. POWER tests whether such an intervention improves co-primary outcomes of weight and sleep-related quality of life at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include sleep symptoms, global ratings of change, and cardiovascular risk scores. Finally, consistent with a hybrid type 1 approach, the trial embeds an implementation process evaluation. We will use quantitative and qualitative methods including budget impact analyses and qualitative interviews to assess barriers to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of POWER will inform population health approaches to the delivery of weight loss care. A remote self-directed program has the potential to be disseminated widely with limited health system resources and likely low-cost.

Identifying pain problems, healthcare professional perceptions, expectations and challenges in multidisciplinary pain center establishment

Aim: Before establishing a multidisciplinary pain center (MPC), the pain problem, healthcare professionals (HCP) perceptions, expectations and the potential challenges of MPC establishment need to be identified. Methods: A quantitative survey study of 1058 Indonesian HCPs. The study uses a national inquiry sent by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) chapter for pain. Results: 99.0% of respondents had met patients with pain as the primary complaint and acute pain as the most common complaint. Insufficient pain management in Indonesian healthcare, insufficient pain epidemiological data and unaware HCP about MPC become problems of pain management in Indonesia. However, most HCP agreed that health facilities should have MPC. Financial issues (insufficient patient insurance) were considered the most important barrier for referring patients to MPC. Conclusion: The identified core problem, HCP perceptions, expectations and challenges of MPC establishment should become a consideration in the strategic planning of MPC establishment.

Determinants of responsiveness to multidisciplinary chronic pain management interventions: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The current manuscript presents a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence regarding the determinants of responsiveness to multidisciplinary management of chronic pain, with pain intensity, pain-related interference, physical functioning and health-related quality of life as the main outcomes, with consideration to multiple secondary outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To identify relevant studies, the Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL and Scopus databases will be searched for all studies exploring factors associated with responsiveness to multidisciplinary pain management from study inception to the present. Cohorts, case-control studies and randomised controlled trials will be included. Independent screening for eligible studies will be completed by a total of four researchers using defined criteria. Data extraction will be executed by two researchers. Study heterogeneity will be estimated using the I² index. A meta-analysis will be performed using random effects models. Publication bias will be evaluated by means of funnel plots and Egger's test.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The proposed study does not involve collection of primary data. Therefore, no ethical approval is required. The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis will be presented in a peer-reviewed journal and at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236424.

Multidisciplinary Firms and the Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Case Study of Low Back Pain

Sixteen million people suffer with chronic low back pain and related healthcare expenditures can be as high as $USD 635 billion. Current pain treatments help a significant number of acute pain patients, allowing them to obtain various treatments and then “exit the market for pain services” quickly. However, chronic patients remain in pain and need multiple, varying treatments over time. Often, a single pain provider does not oversee their care. Here, we analyze the current pain market and suggest ways to establish a new treatment paradigm. We posit that more cost effective treatment and better pain relief can be achieved with multi-disciplinary care with a provider team overseeing care.

Battlefield Acupuncture as a Treatment for Pain

This study evaluated both randomized and nonrandomized trials of battlefield acupuncture for the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. Studies published between May 2016 and November 2019 were found through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, or Scopus, concerned with the treatment of pain using auricular acupuncture in accordance with battlefield acupuncture protocol. Search terms were battlefield acupuncture AND pain or auricular acupuncture AND pain. Case reports, literature reviews, meta-analyses, and expert opinions were not included. Bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We found 12 studies with a combined sample size of 12,326. All five of the included nonrandomized trials reported positive outcomes, while five of seven of the included randomized trials reached statistical significance in their primary outcome. Six of the randomized trials were considered to have a high risk of bias resulting from the lack of blinding. The one randomized trial with moderate bias risk was a positive study. No severe adverse events were reported. Clinicians may consider battlefield acupuncture as a safe treatment for pain while the evidence base grows; however, we conclude that widespread adoption of battlefield acupuncture will require further high-quality studies drawing from diverse settings and patient populations. In addition, future studies should attempt to achieve blinding.