Association between expectations and clinical outcomes in online v. face-to-face therapy - an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Online treatments are increasing in number and are currently available for a wide range of clinical problems. To date little is known about the role of treatment expectations and other placebo-like mechanisms in online settings compared to traditional face-to-face treatment. To address this knowledge gap, we analyzed individual participant data from randomized clinical trials that compared online and face-to-face psychological interventions. METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ovid) were last searched on 2 February 2021. Randomized clinical trials of therapist guided online v. face-to-face psychological interventions for psychiatric or somatic conditions using a randomized controlled design were included. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of studies were independently screened by multiple observers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Authors of the matching trials were contacted for individual participant data. Ratings from the Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire and the primary outcome measure from each trial were used to estimate the association between expectation ratings and treatment outcomes in online v. face-to-face interventions, using a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Of 7045 screened studies, 62 full-text articles were retrieved whereof six studies fulfilled the criteria and provided individual participant data (n = 491). Overall, CEQ ratings predicted clinical outcomes (ß = 0.27) at end of treatment with no moderating effect of treatment modality (online v. face-to-face). CONCLUSIONS: Online treatment appears to be equally susceptible to expectancy effects as face-to-face therapy. This furthers our understanding of the importance of placebo-like factors in online treatment and may aid the improvement of healthcare in online settings.

Early Workplace Communication and Problem Solving to Prevent Back Disability: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Among High-Risk Workers and Their Supervisors.

Purpose There is a clear need for interventions that successfully prevent the development of disability due to back pain. We hypothesized that an intervention aimed at both the worker and the workplace could be effective. Hence, we tested the effects of a new early intervention, based on the misdirected problem solving model, aimed at both workers at risk of long-term impairments and their workplace. Methods Supervisors of volunteers with back pain, no red flags, and a high score on a screen (Örebro Musculoskeletal Screening Questionnaire) were randomized to either an evidence based treatment as usual (TAU) or to a worker and workplace package (WWP). The WWP intervention included communication and problem solving skills for the patient and their immediate supervisor. The key outcome variables of work absence due to pain, health-care utilization, perceived health, and pain intensity were collected before, after and at a 6 month follow up. Results The WWP showed significantly larger improvements relative to the TAU for work absence due to pain, perceived health, and health-care utilization. Both groups improved on pain ratings but there was no significant difference between the groups. The WWP not only had significantly fewer participants utilizing health care and work absence due to pain, but the number of health care visits and days absent were also significantly lower than the TAU. Conclusions The WWP with problem solving and communication skills resulted in fewer days off work, fewer health care visits and better perceived health. This supports the misdirected problem solving model and indicates that screening combined with an active intervention to enhance skills is quite successful and likely cost-effective. Future research should replicate and extend these findings with health-economic analyses.

Psychological Treatment Targeting Acceptance and Compassion in Patients With Chronic Pain: A Randomized Controlled, Internet-delivered, Treatment Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain is often associated with lower function. Self-criticism is associated with depressive symptoms. The purpose of this study was to explore if fusing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and compassion-focused therapy could improve psychological well-being and disability in individuals with chronic pain with high levels of self-criticism in comparison to a wait-list control group. METHODS: Individuals with chronic pain (n=71) were randomly assigned to an 8-week internet-based intervention focused on acceptance and compassion or a wait-list condition. Primary treatment outcomes were the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, Self-Compassion Scale, and Pain Disability Index. Secondary outcomes were the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Anxiety Sensitivity Index, Quality of Life Inventory, Multidimensional Pain Inventory, and Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire. RESULTS: Missing data at postintervention were 22.5%. Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted using linear mixed models. The results revealed greater levels of acceptance and self-compassion for the treatment group, which were primary outcomes, with effect sizes ranging from small to large, and these results were maintained at 6-month follow-up. The rates of clinically significant improvements were also greater for the treatment group in comparison to the wait-list control group on acceptance and compassion. The treatment group also improved in the third primary outcome, pain disability. Significant differences were found in several of the secondary outcomes, in favor of the treatment group. DISCUSSION: Internet-based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy with compassion-focused therapy components shows promise as a viable treatment option in the management of chronic pain.

Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of and Attitudes towards a Standardized Content Description of Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Programs for Patients with Chronic Pain-A Qualitative Study.

Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation (IPR) is a recommended treatment for people with chronic pain. An inadequate description of the content of IPR programs makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding their effects. The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward a content description of IPR programs for patients with chronic pain. Individual interviews with healthcare professionals (n = 11) working in IPR teams in Sweden were conducted between February and May 2019. Analysis of the interviews resulted in a theme: interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation is a complex intervention, with three categories: limitations in the description of IPR programs; lack of knowledge about IPR and chronic pain; and facilitating and hindering factors for using the content description of IPR programs. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals perceived that IPR programs could be described through a general content description. A general content description could enhance the quality of IPR programs through a better understanding of their content and a comparison of different IPR programs. Healthcare professionals also expressed the importance of a content description being a guide rather than a steering document.

Does validation and alliance during the multimodal investigation affect patients' acceptance of chronic pain? An experimental single case study.

Background and aims Among chronic pain patients who are referred to participation in a multimodal rehabilitation program (MMRP), pain catastrophizing and dysfunctional pain coping is common. In many cases it may have driven the patient to a range of unsuccessful searches for biomedical explanations and pain relief. Often these efforts have left patients feeling disappointed, hopeless and misunderstood. The MMRP process can be preceded by a multimodal investigation (MMI) where an important effort is to validate the patient to create a good alliance and begin a process of change towards acceptance of the pain. However, whether the MMI has such therapeutic effect is unclear. Using a repeated single case experimental design, the purpose of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effect of MMI by studying changes in patients' experience of validation, alliance, acceptance of pain, coping, catastrophizing, and depression before and during the MMI process. Methods Participants were six chronic pain patients with high levels of pain catastrophizing (>25 on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale) and risk for long term disability (>105 on the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire) who were subjected to MMI before planned MMRP. For each patient, weekly self-report measures of validation, alliance and acceptance of pain were obtained during a 5-10-weeks baseline, before the MMI started. Subsequently, these measures were also obtained during a 6-8 weeks MMI process in order to enable comparative analyses. Additionally, pain coping, depression and pain catastrophizing were measured using standardized questionnaires before and after the MMI. Results Irrespective of experiences of validation and alliance before MMI, all six patients felt validated and experienced a good alliance during MMI. Acceptance of pain improved only in one patient during MMI. None of the patients showed clinically relevant improvement in pain coping, depression or catastrophizing after the MMI. Conclusions The patients did not change their acceptance and pain coping strategies despite of good alliance and experience of validation during the MMI process. Even if the design of this study precludes generalization to chronic pain patients in general, the results suggest that MMI may not have a therapeutic effect.

Efficacy of a transdiagnostic emotion-focused exposure treatment for chronic pain patients with comorbid anxiety and depression: a randomized controlled trial.

The comorbidity between chronic pain and emotional problems has proven difficult to address with current treatment options. This study addresses the efficacy of a transdiagnostic emotion-focused exposure treatment ("hybrid") for chronic pain patients with comorbid emotional problems. Adults (n = 115) with chronic musculoskeletal pain and functional and emotional problems were included in a 2-centre, parallel randomized controlled, open-label trial comparing this treatment to an active control condition receiving a guided Internet-delivered pain management treatment based on CBT principles (iCBT). The hybrid treatment (n = 58, 10-16 sessions) integrates exposure in vivo for chronic pain based on the fear-avoidance model with an emotion-regulation approach informed by procedures in Dialectical Behavior Therapy. The iCBT (n = 57; 8 treatment modules) addresses topics such as pain education, coping strategies, relaxation, problem solving, stress, and sleep management using standard CBT techniques. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed before and after treatment as well as at a 9-month primary end point. Across conditions, 78% participants completed post-treatment and 81% follow-up assessment. Intent-to-treat analyses showed that the hybrid had a significantly better post-treatment outcome on pain catastrophizing (d = 0.39) and pain interference (d = 0.63) and significantly better follow-up outcomes on depression (d = 0.43) and pain interference (d = 0.51). There were no differences on anxiety and pain intensity. Observed proportions of clinically significant improvement favoured the hybrid on all but one comparison, but no statistically significant differences were observed. We conclude that the hybrid emotion-focused treatment may be considered an acceptable, credible, and efficacious treatment option for chronic pain patients with comorbid emotional problems.

Predictors of multidisciplinary rehabilitation outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major public health problem. Early prediction for optimal treatment results has received growing attention, but there is presently a lack of evidence regarding what information such proactive management should be based on. This study protocol, therefore, presents our planned systematic review and meta-analysis on important predictive factors for health and work-related outcomes following multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MDR) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We aim to perform a synthesis of the available evidence together with a meta-analysis of published peer-reviewed original research that includes predictive factors preceding MDR. Included are prospective studies of adults with benign, chronic (> 3 months) musculoskeletal pain diagnoses who have taken part in MDR. In the studies, associations between personal and rehabilitation-based factors and the outcomes of interest are reported. Outcome domains are pain, physical functioning including health-related quality of life, and work ability with follow-ups of 6 months or more. We will use a broad, explorative approach to any presented predictive factors (demographic, symptoms-related, physical, psychosocial, work-related, and MDR-related) and these will be analyzed through (a) narrative synthesis for each outcome domain and (b) if sufficient studies are available, a quantitative synthesis in which variance-weighted pooled proportions will be computed using a random effects model for each outcome domain. The strength of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. DISCUSSION: The strength of this systematic review is that it aims for a meta-analysis of prospective cohort or randomized controlled studies by performing an extensive search of multiple databases, using an explorative study approach to predictive factors, rather than building on single predictor impact on the outcome or on predefined hypotheses. In this way, an overview of factors central to MDR outcome can be made and will help strengthen the evidence base and inform a wide readership including health care practitioners and policymakers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016025339.

The fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain: current state of scientific evidence.

Research studies focusing on the fear-avoidance model have expanded considerably since the review by Vlaeyen and Linton (Vlaeyen J. W. S. & Linton, S. J. (2000). Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain, 85(3), 317--332). The fear-avoidance model is a cognitive-behavioral account that explains why a minority of acute low back pain sufferers develop a chronic pain problem. This paper reviews the current state of scientific evidence for the individual components of the model: pain severity, pain catastrophizing, attention to pain, escape/avoidance behavior, disability, disuse, and vulnerabilities. Furthermore, support for the contribution of pain-related fear in the inception of low back pain, the development of chronic low back pain from an acute episode, and the maintenance of enduring pain, will be highlighted. Finally, available evidence on recent clinical applications is provided, and unresolved issues that need further exploration are discussed.