Dataset Information

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online-delivered group-based pain management programme in improving pain-related disability for people with persistent pain-protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (iSelf-help trial).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Persistent non-cancer pain affects one in five adults and is more common in M?ori-the Indigenous population of New Zealand (NZ), adults over 65 years, and people living in areas of high deprivation. Despite the evidence supporting multidisciplinary pain management programmes (PMPs), access to PMPs is poor due to long waiting lists. Although online-delivered PMPs enhance access, none have been codesigned with patients or compared with group-based, in-person PMPs. This non-inferiority trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a cocreated, culturally appropriate, online-delivered PMP (iSelf-help) compared with in-person PMP in reducing pain-related disability.

Methods and analysis

Mixed-methods, using a modified participatory action research (PAR) framework, involving three phases. Phase I involved cocreation and cultural appropriateness of iSelf-help by PAR team members. Phase II: The proposed iSelf-help trial is a pragmatic, multicentred, assessor-blinded, two-arm, parallel group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Adults (n=180, age ?18 years) with persistent non-cancer pain eligible for a PMP will be recruited and block randomised (with equal probabilities) to intervention (iSelf-help) and control groups (in-person PMP). The iSelf-help participants will participate in two 60-minute video-conferencing sessions weekly for 12 weeks with access to cocreated resources via smartphone application and a password-protected website. The control participants will receive group-based, in-person delivered PMP. Primary outcome is pain-related disability assessed via modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at 6?months post intervention. Secondary outcomes include anxiety, depression, stress, pain severity, quality of life, acceptance, self-efficacy, catastrophising and fear avoidance. Data will be collected at baseline, after the 12-week intervention, and at 3 and 6?months post intervention. We will conduct economic analyses and mixed-method process evaluations (Phase IIA).

Ethics and dissemination

The Health and Disability Ethics Committee approved the study protocol (HDEC18/CEN/162). Phase III involves dissemination of findings guided by the PAR team as outcomes become apparent.

Trial registration number

ACTRN 12619000771156.

SUBMITTER: Hale L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7868244 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online-delivered group-based pain management programme in improving pain-related disability for people with persistent pain-protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (iSelf-help trial).

Hale Leigh L Devan Hemakumar H Davies Cheryl C Dean Sarah Gerard SG Dowell Anthony A Grainger Rebecca R Gray Andrew R AR Hempel Dagmar D Ingham Tristram T Jones Bernadette B Leung William W Mills Jessica J Saipe Barbara B Shipton Edward E Perry Meredith M

BMJ open 20210204 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Persistent non-cancer pain affects one in five adults and is more common in Māori-the Indigenous population of New Zealand (NZ), adults over 65 years, and people living in areas of high deprivation. Despite the evidence supporting multidisciplinary pain management programmes (PMPs), access to PMPs is poor due to long waiting lists. Although online-delivered PMPs enhance access, none have been codesigned with patients or compared with group-based, in-person PMPs. This non-inf ...[more]

PMID: 33542046

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCurrent best practice recommends group-based pain management programmes for long-term improvements in persistent pain-related disability. However, there are barriers for people to access in-person delivered pain management programmes in Aotearoa.AimsTo develop a co-designed, culturally responsive, online group-based pain management programme (iSelf-help) for people with persistent pain.MethodsA modified participatory action research (PAR) framework was used to co-design contents and cultural-appropriateness of iSelf-help. The PAR team included: (1) seven end-users living with persistent pain, who had previously attended an in-person delivered group pain management programme, (2) two pain management clinicians, (3) two health researchers, (4) two digital health experts, and (5) a health literacy expert. Five meetings were held with the PAR group and a Nominal Group Technique was used to rank order the preferred features of content delivery. In parallel, to ensure cultural appropriateness of iSelf-help, three focus groups (n = 15) were held with Māori (the Indigenous population of Aotearoa) living with persistent pain in collaboration with a Māori community health trust. All contents were reviewed by a Māori Health literacy expert and core contents were translated into Te Reo (Māori language). All contents were finalised by iterative discussion among the PAR team and consultation with Māori stakeholders. The preliminary version of iSelf-help was pilot tested with the PAR group participants and Māori community members living with persistent pain and their feedback was included. The iterative co-design process occurred over a period of nine months.ResultsThe finalised version of iSelf-help included a total of 130 resources organised in to 12 content relevant online modules plus a dedicated welcoming page and an online community forum. Each module included: short videos, animations explaining main concepts, patient stories, written content to accompany visual content, podcasts of relaxation techniques, illustrated texts, and evidence-summaries. A dedicated module of videos demonstrating cardiovascular and strengthening exercises of varying intensity was also included.ConclusionsThis is the first co-created, culturally appropriate, on-line group pain management programme for people with persistent pain, developed in Aotearoa. The next step is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of iSelf-help compared to in-person delivered pain management programme.

Project description:ImportanceLower back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and challenging condition in primary care. The effectiveness of an individually tailored self-management support tool delivered via a smartphone app has not been rigorously tested.ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of selfBACK, an evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support system delivered through an app as an adjunct to usual care for adults with LBP-related disability.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial with an intention-to-treat data analysis enrolled eligible individuals who sought care for LBP in a primary care or an outpatient spine clinic in Denmark and Norway from March 8 to December 14, 2019. Participants were 18 years or older, had nonspecific LBP, scored 6 points or higher on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and had a smartphone and access to email.InterventionsThe selfBACK app provided weekly recommendations for physical activity, strength and flexibility exercises, and daily educational messages. Self-management recommendations were tailored to participant characteristics and symptoms. Usual care included advice or treatment offered to participants by their clinician.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was the mean difference in RMDQ scores between the intervention group and control group at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included average and worst LBP intensity levels in the preceding week as measured on the numerical rating scale, ability to cope as assessed with the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, fear-avoidance belief as assessed by the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, cognitive and emotional representations of illness as assessed by the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, health-related quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire, physical activity level as assessed by the Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale, and overall improvement as assessed by the Global Perceived Effect scale. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months.ResultsA total of 461 participants were included in the analysis; the population had a mean [SD] age of 47.5 [14.7] years and included 255 women (55%). Of these participants, 232 were randomized to the intervention group and 229 to the control group. By the 3-month follow-up, 399 participants (87%) had completed the trial. The adjusted mean difference in RMDQ score between the 2 groups at 3 months was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.06-1.51; P = .03), favoring the selfBACK intervention. The percentage of participants who reported a score improvement of at least 4 points on the RMDQ was 52% in the intervention group vs 39% in the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.15-2.70; P = .01).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adults who sought care for LBP in a primary care or an outpatient spine clinic, those who used the selfBACK system as an adjunct to usual care had reduced pain-related disability at 3 months. The improvement in pain-related disability was small and of uncertain clinical significance. Process evaluation may provide insights into refining the selfBACK app to increase its effectiveness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03798288.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Although several studies have shown that teaching EBM is effective in improving knowledge, at present, there is no convincing evidence that teaching EBM also changes professional behaviour in practice. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a clinically integrated post-graduate training programme in EBM on evidence-based disability evaluation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a cluster randomised controlled trial, fifty-four case-based learning groups consisting of 132 physicians and 1680 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention or control groups. A clinically integrated, post-graduate, 5-day training programme in evidence-based medicine, consisting of (home) assignments, peer teaching, interactive training in searching databases, lectures and brainstorming sessions was provided to the intervention group. The control group received no training. The primary outcome was evidence-based disability evaluation, as indicated by the frequency in use of evidence of sufficient quality in disability evaluation reports. There are no general EBM behaviour outcome measures available. Therefore, we followed general guidelines for constructing performance indicators and defined an a priori cut-off for determination of sufficient quality as recommended for evaluating EB training. Physicians trained in EBM performed more evidence-based disability evaluations compared to physicians in the control group (difference in absolute proportion 9.7%, 95% CI 3.5 to 15.9). The primary outcome differences between groups remained significant after both cluster-adjusted analysis and additional sensitivity analyses accounting for subjects lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A EBM programme successfully improved the use of evidence in a non-hospital based medical specialty. Our findings support the general recommendations to use multiple educational methods to change physician behaviour. In addition, it appeared important that the professional context of the intervention was very supportive in the sense that searches in databases, using and applying guidelines and other forms of evidence are considered standard practice and are encouraged by colleagues and management.

Project description:BackgroundThere are few evidence-based interventions for long COVID; however, holistic approaches supporting recovery are advocated. We assessed whether an online breathing and wellbeing programme improves health related quality-of-life (HRQoL) in people with persisting breathlessness following COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in patients who had been referred from one of 51 UK-based collaborating long COVID clinics. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; were recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing breathlessness, with or without anxiety, at least 4 weeks after symptom onset; had internet access with an appropriate device; and were deemed clinically suitable for participation by one of the collaborating COVID-19 clinics. Following clinical assessment, potential participants were given a unique online portal code. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either immediate participation in the English National Opera (ENO) Breathe programme or to usual care. Randomisation was done by the research team using computer-generated block randomisation lists, with block size 10. The researcher responsible for randomisation was masked to responses. Participants in the ENO Breathe group participated in a 6-week online breathing and wellbeing programme, developed for people with long COVID experiencing breathlessness, focusing on breathing retraining using singing techniques. Those in the deferred group received usual care until they exited the trial. The primary outcome, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was change in HRQoL, assessed using the RAND 36-item short form survey instrument mental health composite (MHC) and physical health composite (PHC) scores. Secondary outcome measures were the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test score, visual analogue scales (VAS) for breathlessness, and scores on the dyspnoea-12, the generalised anxiety disorder 7-item scale, and the short form-6D. A thematic analysis exploring participant experience was also conducted using qualitative data from focus groups, survey responses, and email correspondence. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04830033.FindingsBetween April 22 and May 25, 2021, 158 participants were recruited and randomly assigned. Of these, eight (5%) individuals were excluded and 150 participants were allocated to a treatment group (74 in the ENO Breathe group and 76 in the usual care group). Compared with usual care, ENO Breathe was associated with an improvement in MHC score (regression coefficient 2·42 [95% CI 0·03 to 4·80]; p=0·047), but not PHC score (0·60 [-1·33 to 2·52]; p=0·54). VAS for breathlessness (running) favoured ENO Breathe participation (-10·48 [-17·23 to -3·73]; p=0·0026). No other statistically significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes were observed. One minor self-limiting adverse event was reported by a participant in the ENO Breathe group who felt dizzy using a computer for extended periods. Thematic analysis of ENO Breathe participant experience identified three key themes: (1) improvements in symptoms; (2) feeling that the programme was complementary to standard care; and (3) the particular suitability of singing and music to address their needs.InterpretationOur findings suggest that an online breathing and wellbeing programme can improve the mental component of HRQoL and elements of breathlessness in people with persisting symptoms after COVID-19. Mind-body and music-based approaches, including practical, enjoyable, symptom-management techniques might have a role supporting recovery.FundingImperial College London.

Dataset Information

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online-delivered group-based pain management programme in improving pain-related disability for people with persistent pain-protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (iSelf-help trial).

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online-delivered group-based pain management programme in improving pain-related disability for people with persistent pain-protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (iSelf-help trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets