Enhancing Exposure Treatment for Youths With Chronic Pain: Co-design and Qualitative Approach

Meaningful Clinical Outcomes for Young People and Parents When Treated for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in the UK: Q Set Development

Previous studies have established a core outcome set for pediatric chronic pain clinical trials. The aim of this research was to establish which outcomes young people and parents considered important to measure during treatment for chronic musculoskeletal pain. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore which outcomes could be used to tailor interventions within a clinical setting. Twenty-one young people (aged 11-18 years) and 21 parents were recruited from 2 UK hospital sites and took part in semi-structured interviews that incorporated drawing a timeline of their treatment. They identified positive and negative outcomes showing the perceived effectiveness of treatment. Informed by Q methodology, the words and phases of young people and parents were developed into 101 statements that were mapped onto the core outcome set and represented wide-ranging opinions regarding the outcomes they considered important (Q set). This approach helped identify additional statements related to "parent and family functioning" not routinely considered. Outcomes related to the treatment experience and adverse effects were highlighted as important, yet are not routinely prioritized in clinical research. Parents prioritized outcomes related to the treatment experience, whereas young people prioritized their overall well-being. Over the course of treatment, outcome focus changed, with some outcomes only deemed relevant at a specific time point. Overall, the research highlighted the need for clinical guidance on which outcome domains to measure during the treatment course to gauge treatment effectiveness and optimally tailor interventions. PERSPECTIVE: This study established the range of outcomes that were important to young people and their parents during treatment for chronic musculoskeletal pain. The findings show how young people and parents have different outcome preferences and how their outcome focus changes during the treatment course.

A randomized controlled trial of graded exposure treatment (GET living) for adolescents with chronic pain

ABSTRACT

Graded exposure treatment (GET) is a theory-driven pain treatment that aims to improve functioning by exposing patients to activities previously feared and avoided. Combining key elements of GET with acceptance-based exposure, GET Living (GL) was developed for adolescents with chronic pain (GL). Based on robust treatment effects observed in our single-case experimental design pilot trial of GL (NCT01974791), we conducted a 2-arm randomized clinical trial comparing GL with multidisciplinary pain management (MPM) comprised of cognitive behavioral therapy and physical therapy for pain management (NCT03699007). A cohort of 68 youth with chronic musculoskeletal pain (M age 14.2 years; 81% female) were randomized to GL or MPM. Owing to COVID-19 restrictions, 54% of participants received zoom video delivered care. Assessments were collected at baseline, discharge, as well as at 3-month and 6-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain-related fear and avoidance. Secondary outcomes were child functional disability and parent protective responses to child pain. As hypothesized, GL improved in primary and secondary outcomes at 3-month follow-up. Contrary to our superiority hypothesis, there was no significant difference between GL and MPM. Patients reported both GL and MPM (in person and video) as credible and were highly satisfied with the treatment experience. Next steps will involve examining the single-case experimental design data embedded in this trial to facilitate an understanding of individual differences in treatment responses (eg, when effects occurred, what processes changed during treatment within the treatment arm). The current findings support GET Living and MPM for youth with chronic pain.

Digital Health Secondary Prevention Using Co-Design Procedures: Focus Group Study With Health Care Providers and Patients With Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a debilitating condition and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Digital health is a promising approach for delivering secondary prevention to support patients with a history of MI and for reducing risk factors that can lead to a future event. However, its potential can only be fulfilled when the technology meets the needs of the end users who will be interacting with this secondary prevention.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to gauge the opinions of patients with a history of MI and health professionals concerning the functions, features, and characteristics of a digital health solution to support post-MI care.

METHODS

Our approach aligned with the gold standard participatory co-design procedures enabling progressive refinement of feedback via exploratory, confirmatory, and prototype-assisted feedback from participants. Patients with a history of MI and health professionals from Australia attended focus groups over a videoconference system. We engaged with 38 participants across 3 rounds of focus groups using an iterative co-design approach. Round 1 included 8 participants (4 patients and 4 health professionals), round 2 included 24 participants (11 patients and 13 health professionals), and round 3 included 22 participants (14 patients and 8 health professionals).

RESULTS

Participants highlighted the potential of digital health in addressing the unmet needs of post-MI care. Both patients with a history of MI and health professionals agreed that mental health is a key concern in post-MI care that requires further support. Participants agreed that family members can be used to support postdischarge care and require support from the health care team. Participants agreed that incorporating simple games with a points system can increase long-term engagement. However, patients with a history of MI emphasized a lack of support from their health care team, family, and community more strongly than health professionals. They also expressed some openness to using artificial intelligence, whereas health professionals expressed that users should not be aware of artificial intelligence use.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide valuable insights into the development of digital health secondary preventions aimed at supporting patients with a history of MI. Future research can implement a pilot study in the population with MI to trial these recommendations in a real-world setting.