Benchmark findings from a veteran electronic patient-reported outcomes evaluation from a chronic pain management telehealth program.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability and negatively impacts biological/physical, psychological, and social aspects of life resulting in significant pain interference or disability. This project was part of a longitudinal mixed-methods implementation evaluation of the TelePain-Empower Veterans Program (EVP), a non-pharmacological chronic pain intervention. The purpose of this quality management project was to examine electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROs) including primary pain-related (intensity, interference, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia) and secondary outcomes (physical, psychological, acceptance, social) to determine TelePain-EVP effectiveness. Secondary purpose was to examine dosing effects to better understand potential dose relationships between EVP use and ePROs. METHODS: Standardized ePRO measures were examined at week 1 (baseline), week 10 (post-EVP), and week 26 (follow-up). Qualtrics, a cloud-based platform was used to collect ePRO data at each time point. Veterans that completed at-least one survey at any specified time point were categorized as responders (n = 221). Linear-mixed models (LMMs) were fit to assess changes for each primary and secondary ePRO. RESULTS: Participants ranged from 24 to 81 years old; veterans were typically male (65.16%), black or African American (76.47%), married or partnered (41.63%), attended at-least some college or vocational school (67.87%), and reported low back as their primary pain location (29.41%). There was a significant decrease in pain catastrophizing from baseline to post-TelePain-EVP (p < .001). However, pain catastrophizing improvement from baseline was not present at week 26 (p = .116). Pain interference also decreased from baseline to post-treatment (p = .05), but this improvement did not exceed the adjusted significance threshold. Additional pre-post improvements were also observed for certain secondary ePROs: psychological (anxiety, depression), acceptance (activities engagement). Only the activities engagement effect remained 26 weeks from baseline. Mixed results were observed for EVP dose across primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this evaluation indicate that TelePain-EVP has positive outcomes for certain pain (catastrophizing), psychological (anxiety, depression), and acceptance (activities engagement) for veterans with chronic pain. More TelePain related studies and enterprise-wide evaluations are needed along with comparative and cost effectiveness methods to determine patient benefits and the economic value gained of treatment options such as TelePain-EVP.

Preliminary Evidence on the Association of Complementary and Integrative Health Care Program Participation and Medical Cost in Veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Transforming Health and Resilience through Integration of Values-based Experiences (THRIVE) is a complimentary and integrative health program. THRIVE is delivered through shared medical appointments where participants engage in provider-led education and group discussion on wellness-related topics. THRIVE has been associated with improved patient-reported outcomes in a female veteran cohort. This quality improvement study evaluated the association between THRIVE participation and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare costs across a 1 year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort study design (n = 184) used VHA administrative data to estimate the cost difference between 1 year pre- and post-THRIVE participation. The 1 year post-cost of the THRIVE cohort was then compared to the 1 year cost of a quasi-experimental waitlist control group (n = 156). Data sources included VHA administrative and electronic health records. RESULTS: Patients were roughly 51 years old, were typically White/Caucasian, and had a service priority level representing catastrophic disability. The adjusted post-THRIVE cost was $26,291 [95% confidence interval (CI): $23,014-29,015]; $1,720 higher than the previous year's cost but was not statistically significant (P = 0.289). However, a comparison between the THRIVE cohort and a group of waitlist THRIVE patients (n = 156) the intervention group on average was $8,108 more than the waitlist group (95% CI: $3,194-14,005; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, data analysis of veterans' annual healthcare cost trajectories were inconclusive. This preliminary study produced mixed results requiring more research with larger samples and randomized control trial methodology. Evidence of whether the THRIVE intervention can maintain cost effectiveness while maintaining its supported evidence of healthcare quality is needed.