Dataset Information

Complementary treatment comparison for chronic pain management: A randomized longitudinal study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In chronic pain, it seems that the effect of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is boosted when it is combined with hypnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of self-hypnosis combined with self-care (i.e., a type of CBT) compared to music/self-care, self-care and psychoeducation/CBT and to evaluate their long-term effects.

Methods

An open label randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with chronic pain and was carried out at the University Hospital of Liège (Belgium). Patients were randomized into four groups: self-hypnosis/self-care, music/self-care, self-care, psychoeducation/CBT (7 monthly sessions of 2 hours). Two follow-up sessions were delivered at 6- and 12-month. Levels of pain, fatigue intensity, anxiety, depression, insomnia severity, disability, health locus of control, mental and physical quality of life and attitudes (control, disability, harm, emotion, medical cure, medication, solicitude) towards pain were assessed before and after the treatments, and at follow-up.

Results

203 patients were randomized: 52 in self-hypnosis/self-care, 59 in music/self-care, 47 in self-care, and 45 in psychoeducation/CBT. No group effect was found. A significant time effect was showed. Directly after the treatment, all groups decreased in pain attitudes and physical quality of life. Perceived control increased. At 6-month, all patients kept their levels of physical quality of life and perceived control, and showed decrease in pain intensity, harm, emotion and medical cure. At 12-month, scores that had change previously remained ameliorated, a decrease in insomnia severity and an increase in internal locus of control were observed.

Conclusions

The present findings are encouraging as they display long-term beneficial effects of complementary biopsychosocial-based treatments in chronic pain. It seems that patients continued to apply the learnt strategies as improvements were observed one year after the treatments had ended.

SUBMITTER: Bicego A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8345881 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The self-reported health and functional status of persons with back pain in the United States have declined in recent years, despite greatly increased medical expenditures due to this problem. Although patient psychosocial factors such as pain-related beliefs, thoughts and coping behaviors have been demonstrated to affect how well patients respond to treatments for back pain, few patients receive treatments that address these factors. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which addresses psychosocial factors, has been found to be effective for back pain, but access to qualified therapists is limited. Another treatment option with potential for addressing psychosocial issues, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), is increasingly available. MBSR has been found to be helpful for various mental and physical conditions, but it has not been well-studied for application with chronic back pain patients. In this trial, we will seek to determine whether MBSR is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for persons with chronic back pain, compare its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with CBT and explore the psychosocial variables that may mediate the effects of MBSR and CBT on patient outcomes.In this trial, we will randomize 397 adults with nonspecific chronic back pain to CBT, MBSR or usual care arms (99 per group). Both interventions will consist of eight weekly 2-hour group sessions supplemented by home practice. The MBSR protocol also includes an optional 6-hour retreat. Interviewers masked to treatment assignments will assess outcomes 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks postrandomization. The primary outcomes will be pain-related functional limitations (based on the Roland Disability Questionnaire) and symptom bothersomeness (rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale) at 26 weeks.If MBSR is found to be an effective and cost-effective treatment option for patients with chronic back pain, it will become a valuable addition to the limited treatment options available to patients with significant psychosocial contributors to their pain.Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

Project description:IntroductionChronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices.Ethics and disseminationWe do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberPROSPERO (CRD42014009212).

Project description:Previous research suggests that self-management programs for people with chronic pain improve knowledge and self-efficacy but result in negligible effects on function. This study will investigate the effectiveness self-management support with pain science education and exercise on improving function for people with chronic pain in comparison to a wait-list control. A secondary objective is to determine which variables help to predict response to the intervention.This study will be an unblinded, randomized controlled trial with 110 participants comparing a 6-week program that includes self-management support, pain science education and exercise to a wait-list control. The primary outcome will be function measured by the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment - Dysfunction Index. Secondary outcomes will include pain intensity measured by a numeric pain rating scale, pain interference measured by the eight-item PROMIS pain interference item-bank, how much patients are bothered by functional problems measured by the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment - Bother Index, catastrophic thinking measured by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, fear of movement/re-injury measured by the 11-item Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, sense of perceived injustice measured by the Injustice Experience Questionnaire, self-efficacy measured by the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, pain sensitivity measured by pressure pain threshold and cold sensitivity testing, fatigue measured by a numeric fatigue rating scale, pain neurophysiology knowledge measured by the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire, healthcare utilization measured by number of visits to a healthcare provider, and work status. Assessments will be completed at baseline, 7 and 18 weeks. After the 18-week assessment, the groups will crossover; however, we anticipate carry-over effects with the treatment. Therefore, data from after the crossover will be used to estimate within-group changes and to determine predictors of response that are not for direct between-group comparisons. Mixed effects modelling will be used to determine between-group differences for all primary and secondary outcomes. A series of multiple regression models will be used to determine predictors of treatment response.This study has the potential to inform future self-management programming through evaluation of a self-management program that aims to improve function as the primary outcome.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02422459 , registered on 13 April 2015.

Project description:BackgroundDigital pain mapping allows for remote and ecological momentary assessment in patients over multiple time points spanning days to months. Frequent ecological assessments may reveal tendencies and fluctuations more clearly and provide insights into the trajectory of a patient's pain.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study is to remotely map and track the intensity and distribution of pain and discomfort (eg, burning, aching, and tingling) in patients with nonmalignant spinal referred pain over 12 weeks using a web-based app for digital pain mapping. The secondary aim is to explore the barriers of use by determining the differences in clinical and user characteristics between patients with good (regular users) and poor (nonregular users) reporting compliance.MethodsPatients (N=91; n=53 women) with spinal referred pain were recruited using web-based and traditional in-house strategies. Patients were asked to submit weekly digital pain reports for 12 weeks. Each pain report consisted of digital pain drawings on a pseudo-three-dimensional body chart and pain intensity ratings. The pain drawings captured the distribution of pain and discomfort (pain quality descriptors) expressed as the total extent and location. Differences in weekly pain reports were explored using the total extent (pixels), current and usual pain intensity ratings, frequency of quality descriptor selection, and Jaccard similarity index. Validated e-questionnaires were completed at baseline to determine the patients' characteristics (adapted Danish National Spine Register), disability (Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index), and pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale) profiles. Barriers of use were assessed at 6 weeks using a health care-related usability and acceptance e-questionnaire and a self-developed technology-specific e-questionnaire to assess the accessibility and ease of access of the pain mapping app. Associations between total extent, pain intensity, disability, and catastrophizing were explored to further understand pain. Differences between regular and nonregular users were assessed to understand the pain mapping app reporting compliance.ResultsFluctuations were identified in pain reports for total extent and pain intensity ratings (P<.001). However, quality descriptor selection (P=.99) and pain drawing (P=.49), compared using the Jaccard index, were similar over time. Interestingly, current pain intensity was greater than usual pain intensity (P<.001), suggesting that the timing of pain reporting coincided with a more intense pain experience than usual. Usability and acceptance were similar between regular and nonregular users. Regular users were younger (P<.001) and reported a larger total extent of pain than nonregular users (P<.001).ConclusionsThis is the first study to examine digital reports of pain intensity and distribution in patients with nonmalignant spinal referred pain remotely for a sustained period and barriers of use and compliance using a digital pain mapping app. Differences in age, pain distribution, and current pain intensity may influence reporting behavior and compliance.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of chronic pain is high and increasing. Medication management is an important component of chronic pain management. There is a shortage of physicians who are available and comfortable providing this service. In Alberta, pharmacists have been granted an advanced scope of practice. Given this empowerment, their availability, training and skill set, pharmacists are well positioned to play an expanded role in the medication management of chronic pain sufferers.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and cost of a physician-only vs a pharmacist-physician team model of medication management for chronic nonmalignant pain sufferers.MethodData was analyzed for 89 patients who had received exclusively medication management at a rural Alberta multidisciplinary clinic. 56 were managed by a sole physician. 33 were managed by a team (pharmacist + physician). In the team model, the physician did the medical assessment, diagnosis, and established a treatment plan in consultation with the patient and pharmacist. The pharmacist then provided the ongoing follow-up including education, dose titration and side effect management and consulted with the physician as needed. Change in pain (Numerical Rating Scale) and disability (Pain Interference Questionnaire) over the course of treatment were recorded. The treatment duration and number of visits were used to calculate cost of care.ResultsBoth models of medication management resulted in significant and comparable improvements in pain, disability and patient perception of medication effectiveness. Patients in the physician-only group were seen more frequently and at a greater cost. The pharmacist-physician team approach was markedly more cost-effective, and patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with their medication management.ConclusionsThe pharmacist-physician team model of medication management results in significant reductions of pain and disability for chronic nonmalignant pain sufferers at a reduced cost and is well accepted by patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic musculoskeletal pain has a vast global prevalence and economic burden. Conservative therapies are universally recommended but require patient engagement and self-management to be effective. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a 12-week digital care program (DCP) in a large population of patients with chronic knee and back pain. METHODS:A longitudinal observational study was conducted using a remote DCP available through a mobile app. Subjects participated in a 12-week multimodal DCP incorporating education, sensor-guided exercise therapy (ET), and behavioral health support with 1-on-1 remote health coaching. The primary outcome was pain measured by the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary measures included engagement levels, program completion, program satisfaction, condition-specific pain measures, depression, anxiety, and work productivity. RESULTS:A total of 10,264 adults with either knee (n=3796) or low back (n=6468) pain for at least three months were included in the study. Participants experienced a 68.45% average improvement in VAS pain between baseline intake and 12 weeks. In all, 73.04% (7497/10,264) participants completed the DCP into the final month. In total, 78.60% (5893/7497) of program completers (7144/10,264, 69.60% of all participants) achieved minimally important change in pain. Furthermore, the number of ET sessions and coaching interactions were both positively associated with improvement in pain, suggesting that the amount of engagement influenced outcomes. Secondary outcomes included a 57.9% and 58.3% decrease in depression and anxiety scores, respectively, and 61.5% improvement in work productivity. Finally, 3 distinct clusters of pain response trajectories were identified, which could be predicted with a mean 76% accuracy using baseline measures. CONCLUSIONS:These results support the efficacy and scalability of a DCP for chronic low back and knee pain in a large, diverse, real-world population. Participants demonstrated high completion and engagement rates and a significant positive relationship between engagement and pain reduction was identified, a finding that has not been previously demonstrated in a DCP. Furthermore, the large sample size allowed for the identification of distinct pain response subgroups, which may prove beneficial in predicting recovery and tailoring future interventions. This is the first longitudinal digital health study to analyze pain outcomes in a sample of this magnitude, and it supports the prospect for DCPs to serve the overwhelming number of musculoskeletal pain sufferers worldwide.

Project description:PurposeNeuropathic pain is a common disorder of the somatosensory system that affects 7%-10% of the general population. The disorder places a large social and economic burden on patients as well as healthcare services. However, not everyone with a relevant underlying aetiology develops corresponding pain. DOLORisk Dundee, a European Union-funded cohort, part of the multicentre DOLORisk consortium, was set up to increase current understanding of this variation in onset. In particular, the cohort will allow exploration of psychosocial, clinical and genetic predictors of neuropathic pain onset.ParticipantsDOLORisk Dundee has been constructed by rephenotyping two pre-existing Scottish population cohorts for neuropathic pain using a standardised 'core' study protocol: Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland (GoDARTS) (n=5236) consisting of predominantly type 2 diabetics from the Tayside region, and Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study (GS:SFHS; n=20 221). Rephenotyping was conducted in two phases: a baseline postal survey and a combined postal and online follow-up survey. DOLORisk Dundee consists of 9155 participants (GoDARTS=1915; GS:SFHS=7240) who responded to the baseline survey, of which 6338 (69.2%; GoDARTS=1046; GS:SFHS=5292) also responded to the follow-up survey (18 months later).Findings to dateAt baseline, the proportion of those with chronic neuropathic pain (Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions questionnaire score ≥3, duration ≥3 months) was 30.5% in GoDARTS and 14.2% in Generation Scotland. Electronic record linkage enables large scale genetic association studies to be conducted and risk models have been constructed for neuropathic pain.Future plansThe cohort is being maintained by an access committee, through which collaborations are encouraged. Details of how to do this will be available on the study website (http://dolorisk.eu/). Further follow-up surveys of the cohort are planned and funding applications are being prepared to this effect. This will be conducted in harmony with similar pain rephenotyping of UK Biobank.