The Pain at Work Toolkit for Employees with Chronic or Persistent Pain: A Collaborative-Participatory Study

The effectiveness of digital interventions for self-management of chronic pain in employment settings: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain affects over a quarter of the workforce with high economic burden for individuals, employers and healthcare services. Access to work-related advice for people with chronic pain is variable. This systematic review aims to explore the effectiveness of workplace-delivered digital interventions for the self-management of chronic pain.

SOURCE OF DATA

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, JBI, Open Science Framework, Epistemonikos and Google Scholar. Articles published between January 2001 and December 2023 were included. Searches were conducted between October 2023 and December 2023.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Workplace-delivered digital interventions to support self-management of chronic pain at work may improve pain and health-related quality of life in vocationally active adults. Delivering interventions outside of clinical services, through the workplace setting, may help to reduce inequity in access to work-related advice for people with chronic pain, and ultimately reduce the burden on individuals, employers and healthcare services. Interventions include mobile apps and web-based programmes.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Studies were moderate-to-low quality. Most studies focused on exercise, few considered other aspects of pain self-management. Given the limited evidence in the current literature, consensus on best intervention format and delivery is lacking.

GROWING POINTS

More high-quality studies are needed given the heterogeneity in study design, interventions and outcome measures.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

No interventions included advice on work-related adjustments or support. Few studies included work-related outcomes, despite the known impact of pain on work and work on health.

An Appraisal of the Evidence behind the Use of the CHRODIS Plus Initiative for Chronic Pain: A Scoping Review

Background: Chronic conditions, especially pain conditions, have a very significant impact on quality of life and on workplaces. Workplace interventions for chronic conditions are heterogenous, multidimensional, and sometimes poorly evidenced. The Joint Action for Chronic Disease Plus (CHRODIS Plus), including The CHRODIS Plus Workbox on Employment and Chronic Conditions (CPWEC), aimed to combat this, prevent chronic disease and multimorbidity, and influence policy in Europe. However, the supporting evidence behind CHRODIS Plus has not been formally assessed. Methods: A scoping review was carried out; Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched for literature related to CHRODIS Plus and pain. Title and abstract and full-text screening were carried out in duplicate and independently. Additionally, CHRODIS Plus authors were approached for unpublished data. Secondly, the search was broadened to CHRODIS Plus and pain-causing conditions. Grey literature was also searched. Appropriateness appraisal was derived from the Trial Forge Guidance. Systematic reviews, on which CPWEC was based, were appraised using the A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool. Results: The initial search yielded two results, of which zero were suitable to be included in the scoping review. The second, broader search revealed 14 results; however, none were deemed suitable for inclusion. AMSTAR 2 scores revealed that the three systematic reviews influencing CPWEC were of varying quality (from critically low to moderate). Conclusions: CPWEC is based on heterogenous reviews of varying quality. However, comparable tools are designed using alternative forms of evidence. Further research evaluating the post-implementation efficacy of the tool is needed.

The Web-Based Pain-at-Work Toolkit With Telephone Support for Employees With Chronic or Persistent Pain: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Feasibility Trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic or persistent pain affects one's ability to work or be productive at work, generating high societal and economic burden. However, the provision of work-related advice and support for people with chronic pain is variable or lacking. The Pain-at-Work (PAW) Toolkit was cocreated with people who live with pain, health care professionals, and employers. It aims to increase knowledge about employee rights and how to access support for managing a painful chronic condition in the workplace and provides advice on lifestyle behaviors that facilitate the management of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to establish the feasibility of conducting a definitive cluster randomized controlled trial comparing access to the PAW Toolkit and telephone support calls from an occupational therapist (PAW) with treatment as usual (ie, standard support from their employer). Our primary outcomes are establishing parameters of feasibility, acceptability, usability, and safety of this digital workplace health intervention. We will assess the candidate primary and secondary outcomes' feasibility and test research processes for a definitive trial.

METHODS

This is an open-label, parallel 2-arm pragmatic feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial with exploratory health economics analysis and a nested qualitative interview study. We aim to recruit 120 participants from at least 8 workplace clusters (any type, >10 employees) in England. The recruitment of workplaces occurs via personal approach, and the recruitment of individual participants is web based. Eligible participants are vocationally active adults aged ≥18 years with internet access and self-reporting chronic pain interfering with their ability to undertake or enjoy productive work. A restricted 1:1 cluster-level randomization is used to allocate employment settings to PAW or treatment as usual; participants are unblinded to group allocation. Following site- and individual-level consent, participants complete a web-based baseline survey (time 0), including measures of work capacity, health and well-being, and health care resource use. Follow-up is performed at 3 months (time 1) and 6 months (time 2). Feasibility outcomes relate to recruitment; intervention fidelity (eg, delivery, reach, uptake, and engagement); retention; and follow-up. Qualitative evaluation (time 2) is mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior model and will explore intervention acceptability to employees and employers, along with individual and contextual factors influencing the delivery and uptake of the intervention.

RESULTS

Ethics approval was obtained in March 2023. Trial recruitment began in June 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

The PAW Toolkit is the first evidence-based digital health intervention aimed at supporting the self-management of chronic or persistent pain at work. This study will inform the design of a definitive trial, including sample size estimation, approaches to cluster site identification, primary and secondary outcomes' selection, and the final health economic model. Findings will inform approaches for the future delivery of this digital health intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05838677; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05838677.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/51474.

Managing Minds at Work: Development of a Digital Line Manager Training Program

Mental ill-health is the leading cause of sickness absence, creating a high economic burden. Workplace interventions aimed at supporting employers in the prevention of mental ill-health in the workforce are urgently required. Managing Minds at Work is a digital intervention aimed at supporting line managers in promoting better mental health at work through a preventative approach. This intervention was developed as part of the Mental Health and Productivity Pilot, a wider initiative aimed at supporting employers across the Midlands region of the United Kingdom to improve the future of workplace mental health and wellbeing. The aim of the study is to describe the design and development of the Managing Minds at Work digital training program, prior to feasibility testing. We adopted a collaborative participatory design involving co-design (users as partners) and principles of user-centred design (pilot and usability testing). An agile methodology was used to co-create intervention content with a stakeholder virtual community of practice. Development processes were mapped to core elements of the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. The program covers five broad areas: (i) promoting self-care techniques among line managers; (ii) designing work to prevent work-related stress; (iii) management competencies to prevent and reduce stress; (iv) having conversations with employees about mental health; (v) building a psychologically safe work environment. It was considered by stakeholders to be appropriate for any type of organization, irrespective of their size or resources. Pilot and usability testing (n = 37 surveys) aligned with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) demonstrated that the program was perceived to be useful, relevant, and easy to use by managers across sectors, organization types, and sizes. We identified positive impacts on manager attitudes and behavioral intentions related to preventing mental ill-health and promoting good mental wellbeing at work. The next step is to explore the feasibility and acceptability of Managing Minds at Work with line managers in diverse employment settings.