Pain relief and associated factors: a cross-sectional observational web-based study in a Quebec cohort of persons living with chronic pain.

Objectives: Randomized clinical trials are used to evaluate the efficacy of various pain treatments individually, while a limited number of observational studies have portrayed the overall relief experienced by persons living with chronic pain. This study aimed to describe pain relief in real-world clinical settings and to identify associated factors. Methods: This exploratory web-based cross-sectional study used data from 1,419 persons recruited in the community. Overall pain relief brought by treatments used by participants was assessed using a 0%-100% scale (10-unit increments). Results: A total of 18.2% of participants reported minimal pain relief (0%-20%), 60.0% moderate to substantial pain relief (30%-60%), and 21.8% extensive pain relief (70%-100%). Multivariable multinomial regression analysis revealed factors significantly associated with greater pain relief, including reporting a stressful event as circumstances surrounding the onset of pain, living with pain for ≥10 years, milder pain intensity, less catastrophic thinking, use of prescribed pain medications, use of nonpharmacological pain treatments, access to a trusted healthcare professional, higher general health scores, and polypharmacy. Factors associated with lower pain relief included surgery as circumstances surrounding pain onset, use of over-the-counter pain medications, and severe psychological distress. Discussion: In this community sample of persons living with chronic pain, 8 out of 10 persons reported experiencing at least moderate relief with their treatment. The analysis has enabled us to explore potential modifiable factors as opportunities for improving the well-being of persons living with chronic pain.

Where we live matters: a comparison of chronic pain treatment between remote and non-remote regions of Quebec, Canada.

Objective: Where a person lives is a recognized socioeconomic determinant of health and influences healthcare access. This study aimed to compare the pain treatment profile of persons with chronic pain (CP) living in remote regions to those living in non-remote regions (near or in major urban centers). Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among persons living with CP across Quebec. In a web-based questionnaire, participants were asked to report in which of the 17 administrative regions they were living (six considered "remote"). Pain treatment profile was drawn up using seven variables: use of prescribed pain medications, over-the-counter pain medications, non-pharmacological pain treatments, multimodal approach, access to a trusted healthcare professional for pain management, excessive polypharmacy (≥10 medications), and use of cannabis for pain. Results: 1,399 participants completed the questionnaire (women: 83.4%, mean age: 50 years, living in remote regions: 23.8%). As compared to persons living in remote regions, those living in non-remote regions were more likely to report using prescribed pain medications (83.8% vs. 67.4%), a multimodal approach (81.5% vs. 75.5%), experience excessive polypharmacy (28.1% vs. 19.1%), and report using cannabis for pain (33.1% vs. 20.7%) (bivariable p < 0.05). Only the use of prescribed medications as well as cannabis remained significantly associated with the region of residence in the multivariable models. Discussion: There are differences in treatment profiles of persons with CP depending on the region they live. Our results highlight the importance of considering remoteness, and not only rurality, when it comes to better understanding the determinants of pain management.

Changing society, changing research: integrating gender to better understand physical and psychological treatments use in chronic pain management.

ABSTRACT: Treatment of chronic pain should be multimodal and include pharmacological, physical, and psychological treatments. However, because various barriers to physical and psychological treatments (PPTs) exist, a better understanding of biopsychosocial factors leading to their use is relevant. This study aimed to explore the association between gender identity, gender-stereotyped personality traits, and the use of PPTs in chronic pain management. The ChrOnic Pain trEatment cohort, a self-reported data infrastructure resulting from a web-based recruitment of 1935 people living with chronic pain (Quebec, Canada) was analyzed. Gender identity was operationalized as women, men, and nonbinary. Gender-stereotyped personality traits were measured using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (feminine, masculine, androgynous, undifferentiated). A checklist of 31 types of PPTs that can be used for chronic pain management was presented to participants (yes/no). From the 1433 participants, 85.5% reported using at least one PPT. Hot-cold therapies (43.4%), exercise (41.9%), and meditation (35.2%) were the most frequently used PPTs, but most popular PPTs were not the same among women and men. Women reported a significantly higher use of PPTs in general (87.2% vs 77.2%; P < 0.001). Multivariable and interaction analyses showed that identifying as a man decreased the odds of reporting the use of PPTs (odds ratio: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.92) but only among participants who scored high on both masculine and feminine personality traits (those classified as androgynous). The high prevalence of PPTs use found in our study is positive. Our results are relevant for a more personalized promotion of PPTs for chronic pain management.

The Medication Quantification Scale 4.0: An Updated Index Based on Prescribers' Perceptions of the Risk Associated With Chronic Pain Medications.

To quantify risks associated with drug utilization in the real world for the treatment of chronic pain (CP), an index called the Medication Quantification Scale (MQS) was developed in 1992 in the United States and last updated in 2003. This study aimed to update, adapt to the contemporary Canadian context, and validate a revised version of the MQS (the MQS-4.0). Step 1: An expert committee adapted the MQS to the Canadian clinical practice context. Step 2: An update of risk weights given to medication subclasses was achieved using a prescriber survey (weights were derived from median 0-10 scores given to each subclass). Step 3: Construct validity of the MQS-4.0 was assessed after applying risk weights to the medication use profile of persons living with CP covered by public drug insurance plan. Thirty-six medication subclasses were included in the MQS-4.0. A total of 207 prescribers (physicians, pharmacists, and nurse practitioners) participated in the perception survey; 10.63% identified as pain specialists. When risk weights were applied to prescription claims (n = 9,122), the MQS-4.0 score was associated (P < .05) with the MQS-III score and variables associated with polypharmacy (eg, Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribers or health care visits). This study provides an updated index intended for adult populations based on prescribers' perceptions of the risk associated with CP medications that can be useful for clinical practice and research among persons living with CP in Canada. It will, however, be relevant to verify whether similar risk weights are obtained in future pain specialist surveys. PERSPECTIVE: The MQS-4.0 is an update of the MQS used for quantifying the risk associated with the use of analgesics/coanalgesics. Adequate psychometrics properties were found.

Pain Medications Used by Persons Living With Fibromyalgia: A Comparison Between the Profile of a Quebec Sample and Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Background: Pharmacological management of fibromyalgia is complex. Chronic pain management is characterized by off-label prescribing and use, multimorbidity, and polypharmacy. Aims: This study aimed to describe pain medications use and perceived risk among people living with fibromyalgia and compare this use to evidence-based recommendations. Methods: Directive telephone interviews were conducted with 63 individuals self-reporting a diagnosis of fibromyalgia (Quebec, Canada). The questionnaire addressed specific questions about their pain and pharmacological treatments currently used for pain management (prescribed and over-the-counter). Collected data were compared to the Canadian Fibromyalgia Clinical Practice Guidelines and to evidence reports published by recognized organizations. Results: Despite a lack of robust scientific evidence to support opioids use to manage pain in fibromyalgia, 33% of our sample reported using them. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were used by 54.0% of participants, although this medication is not recommended due to lack of efficacy. Tramadol, which is recommended, was used by 23.8% of participants. Among the medications strongly recommended, anticonvulsants were used by 36.5%, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor antidepressants by 55.6%, and tricyclic antidepressants by 22.2%. Cannabinoids (17.5%) and medical cannabis (34.9%) use were also reported. For all of these medication subclasses, no differences were found between participants not reporting (n = 35) or reporting (n = 28) more than one pain diagnosis (P < 0.05). Medication subclasses considered most at risk of adverse effects by participants were the least used. Conclusions: Results reveal discordance between evidence-based recommendations and medications use, which highlights the complexity of pharmacological treatment of fibromyalgia.

Contexte: La prise en charge pharmacologique de la fibromyalgie est complexe. La prise en charge de la douleur chronique est caractérisée par la prescription et l'utilisation non conforme de médicaments, la multimorbidité et la polypharmacothérapie.Objectifs: Cette étude visait à décrire l'utilisation de médicaments contre la douleur et le risque perçu chez les personnes atteintes de fibromyalgie, et à comparer cette utilisation aux recommandations fondées sur des données probantes.Méthodes: Des entretiens téléphoniques directifs ont été menés auprès de 63 personnes ayant déclaré avoir reçu un diagnostic de fibromyalgie (Québec, Canada). Le questionnaire abordait des questions précises sur leur douleur et les traitements pharmacologiques actuellement utilisés pour la prise en charge de leur douleur (prescrits et vendus sans ordonnance). Les données recueillies ont été comparées aux Lignes directrices canadiennes sur la fibromyalgie et aux rapports de données probantes publiés par des organisations reconnues.Résultats: Malgré l'absence de données probantes robustes à l'appui de l'utilisation des opioïdes pour la prise en charge la douleur chez les personnes atteintes de fibromyalgie, 33 % de notre échantillon a déclaré les utiliser. Les anti-inflammatoires nonstéroïdiens étaient pour leur part utilisés par 54,0 % des participants, bien que ce médicament ne soit pas recommandé en raison d'un manque d'efficacité. Le tramadol, recommandé, était utilisé par 23,8 % des participants. Parmi les médicaments fortement recommandés, les anticonvulsivants étaient utilisés par 36,5 % desparticipants, les antidépresseurs inhibiteurs de la recapture de la sérotonine et de la noradrénaline par 55,6 % des participants, et les antidépresseurs tricycliques par 22,2 % d'entre eux. La consommation de cannabinoïdes (17,5 %) et de cannabis médical (34,9 %) ont également été signalées. Pour toutes ces sous-classes de médicaments, aucune différence n'a été trouvée entre les participants ne signalant pas (n = 35) ou signalant (n = 28) plus d'un diagnostic de douleur (P < 0,05). Les sous-classes de médicaments considérées par les participants comme les plus à risque d'effets indésirables étaient les moins utilisées.Conclusions: Les résultats révèlent une discordance entre les recommandations fondées sur des données probantes et l'utilisation de médicaments, ce qui met en évidence la complexité du traitement pharmacologique de la fibromyalgie.

Polypharmacy and Excessive Polypharmacy Among Persons Living with Chronic Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Prevalence and Associated Factors.

Purpose: Polypharmacy can be defined as the concomitant use of ≥5 medications and excessive polypharmacy, as the use of ≥10 medications. Objectives were to (1) assess the prevalence of polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy among persons living with chronic pain, and (2) identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with excessive polypharmacy. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from 1342 persons from the ChrOnic Pain trEatment (COPE) Cohort (Quebec, Canada). The self-reported number of medications currently used by participants (regardless of whether they were prescribed or taken over-the-counter, or were used for treating pain or other health issues) was categorized to assess polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy. Results: Participants reported using an average of 6 medications (median: 5). The prevalence of polypharmacy was 71.4% (95% CI: 69.0-73.8) and excessive polypharmacy was 25.9% (95% CI: 23.6-28.3). No significant differences were found across gender identity groups. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that factors associated with greater chances of reporting excessive polypharmacy (vs <10 medications) included being born in Canada, using prescribed pain medications, and reporting greater pain intensity (0-10) or pain relief from currently used pain treatments (0-100%). Factors associated with lower chances of excessive polypharmacy were using physical and psychological pain treatments, reporting better general health/physical functioning, considering pain to be terrible/feeling like it will never get better, and being employed. Conclusion: Polypharmacy is the rule rather than the exception among persons living with chronic pain. Close monitoring and evaluation of the different medications used are important for all persons, especially those with limited access to care.

Trends in Prescription Chronic Pain Medication Use before and during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Québec, Canada: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, a state of health emergency was declared in May 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to assess trends in the use of prescription medication for pain management by people living with chronic pain before and during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Participants (n = 177) were adults reporting chronic pain who had completed a web-based questionnaire in 2019 and for whom complete longitudinal private and public insurance prescription claims were available. The monthly prevalence of medication use for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and prescribed cannabinoids was assessed. An interrupted time series analysis was then performed to evaluate if the COVID-19 pandemic had had an impact on trends in pain medication use. RESULTS: The beginning of the first wave of the pandemic was associated with the onset of a downward trend in opioid use (p < 0.05); no such association was found regarding NSAIDs. However, point prevalence of opioid use at the beginning (Nov. 2019) and at the end (Mai 2020) of the study period remained somewhat stable (17.0% vs. 16.4%). Regarding prescribed cannabinoids, a gradual increase in use was observed over the entire study period independently from the impact of the first wave of the pandemic (15.3% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: While the occurrence of the first wave did have an impact on opioid use among people living with chronic pain, access to and use of opioids appear to have returned to normal before the end of the first wave of COVID-19.

Sex and gender differences in healthcare utilisation trajectories: a cohort study among Quebec workers living with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain (CP) is a poorly recognised and frequently inadequately treated condition affecting one in five adults. Reflecting on sociodemographic disparities as barriers to CP care in Canada was recently established as a federal priority. The objective of this study was to assess sex and gender differences in healthcare utilisation trajectories among workers living with CP. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: This study was conducted using the TorSaDE Cohort which links the 2007-2016 Canadian Community Health Surveys and Quebec administrative databases (longitudinal claims). Among 2955 workers living with CP, the annual number of healthcare contacts was computed during the 3 years after survey completion. OUTCOME: Group-based trajectory modelling was used to identify subgroups of individuals with similar patterns of healthcare utilisation over time (healthcare utilisation trajectories). RESULTS: Across the study population, three distinct 3-year healthcare utilisation trajectories were found: (1) low healthcare users (59.9%), (2) moderate healthcare users (33.6%) and (3) heavy healthcare users (6.4%). Sex and gender differences were found in the number of distinct trajectories and the stability of the number of healthcare contacts over time. Multivariable analysis revealed that independent of other sociodemographic characteristics and severity of health condition, sex-but not gender-was associated with the heavy healthcare utilisation longitudinal trajectory (with females showing a greater likelihood; OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.6 to 4.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our results underline the importance of assessing sex-based disparities in help-seeking behaviours, access to healthcare and resource utilisation among persons living with CP.

Distinct care trajectories among persons living with arthritic conditions: A two-year state sequence analysis.

Objectives: Developing solutions to optimize care trajectories (CareTs) requires examining patient journeys through the health care system. This study aimed to describe CareTs among people living with arthritis and evaluate their association with self-reported health outcomes. Methods: Analyses were conducted using the TorSaDE Cohort (n = 102,148), which connects the 2007 to 2016 Canadian Community Health Surveys (CCHS) with Quebec administrative databases (longitudinal claims). CareTs of participants living with arthritis according to CCHS (n = 16,631), over the two years before CCHS completion, were clustered using state sequence analysis (months as a time unit). CareT group membership was then put in association with self-reported outcomes (pain intensity and interference, self-perceived general and mental health). Results: The analysis revealed five CareT groups characterized predominantly by: (1) arthritis-related visits to a specialist (n = 2,756; 16.6%), (2) arthritis-related emergency department visits (n = 2,928; 17.6%), (3) very high all-cause health care utilization and arthritis-related hospitalizations (n = 1,570; 9.4%), (4) arthritis-related medical visits to general practitioners and specialists (n = 2,708; 16.3%), (5) low all-cause health care utilization (n = 6,669; 40.1%). Multivariable results revealed that CareT group membership was associated with higher levels of pain interference (CareT group #3 vs. #5: OR: 1.4, 95%CI: 1.1-1.8) and fair/poor self-perceived general health (CareT group #1 vs. #5: OR: 1.551, 95%CI: 1.319-1.824; #2 vs. #5: OR: 1.244, 95%CI: 1.062-1.457; #3 vs. #5: OR: 1.771, 95%CI: 1.451-2.162; #4 vs. #5: OR: 1.481, 95%CI: 1.265-1.735). Discussion: Sate sequence analysis is an innovative method of studying CareTs and valuable for making evidence-based decisions taking into account inter- and intra-individual variability.

Prevalence of cannabis use for pain management in Quebec: A post-legalization estimate among generations living with chronic pain.

Background: Medical cannabis has been legal in Canada since 2001, and recreational cannabis was legalized in October 2018, which has led to a widespread increase in the accessibility of cannabis products. Aims: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of cannabis use among adults living with chronic pain (CP) and investigate the relationship between age and cannabis use for CP management. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of the COPE Cohort data set, a large Quebec sample of 1935 adults living with CP, was conducted. Participants completed a web-based questionnaire in 2019 that contained three yes/no questions about past-year use of cannabis (i.e., for pain management, management of other health-related conditions, recreational purposes). Results: Among the 1344 participants who completed the cannabis use section of the questionnaire, the overall prevalence of cannabis use for pain management was 30.1% (95% confidence interval 27.7-32.7). Differences were found between age groups, with the highest prevalence among participants aged ≤26 years (36.5%) and lowest for those aged ≥74 years (8.8%). A multivariable logistic model revealed that age, region of residence, generalized pain, use of medications or nonpharmacological approaches for pain management, alcohol/drug consumption, and smoking were associated with the likelihood of using cannabis for pain management. Conclusions: Cannabis is a common treatment for the management of CP, especially in younger generations. The high prevalence of use emphasizes the importance of better knowledge translation for people living with CP, rapidly generating evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of cannabis, and clinicians' involvement in supporting people who use cannabis for pain management.

Contexte: Le cannabis médical est légal au Canada depuis 2001 et le cannabis récréatif a été légalisé en octobre 2018, ce qui a conduit à une augmentation généralisée de l'accessibilité des produits du cannabis. Objectifs: Cette étude visait à estimer la prévalence de la consommation de cannabis chez les adultes vivant avec la douleur chronique et à étudier l'association entre l'âge et la consommation de cannabis pour la prise en charge de la douleur chronique. Méthodes: Une analyse transversale de l'ensemble de données de la cohorte COPE, un grand échantillon québécois de 1 935 adultes vivant avec la douleur chronique, a été menée. En 2019, les participants ont rempli un questionnaire en ligne qui contenait trois questions oui/non sur la consommation de cannabis au cours de l'année écoulée (c.-à-d., pour la prise en charge de la douleur, la prise en charge d'autres affections liées à la santé, à des fins récréatives). Résultats: Parmi les 1 344 participants qui ont rempli la section du questionnaire portant sur la consommation de cannabis, la prévalence globale de la consommation de cannabis pour la prise en charge de la douleur était de 30,1 % (intervalle de confiance à 95 %, 27,7-32,7). Des différences ont été constatées entre les groupes d'âge, avec la prévalence la plus élevée chez les participants âgés de ≤ 26 ans (36,5 %) et la plus basse chez les participants âgés de ≥ 74 ans (8,8 %). Un modéle logistique multivariable a révélé que l'âge, la région de résidence, la douleur généralisée, l'utilisation de médicaments ou approches non pharmacologiques pour la prise en charge de la douleur, la consommation d'alcool/de drogue et le tabagisme étaient associés à la probabilité d'utiliser le cannabis pour la prise en charge de la douleur. Conclusions: Le cannabis est un traitement courant pour la prise en charge de la douleur chronique, en particulier chez les jeunes générations. La prévalence élevée de l'utilisation souligne l'importance d'un meilleur transfert des connaissances pour les personnes vivant avec la douleur chronique, en générant rapidement des donnant probantes concernant l'innocuité et l'efficacité du cannabis, ainsi que l'implication des cliniciens dans le soutien aux personnes qui consomment du cannabis pour la prise en charge de la douleur.

Gender Differences in Medication Adverse Effects Experienced by People Living With Chronic Pain.

Objectives: Understanding gender differences in chronic pain (CP) outcome research is essential to optimal treatment delivery. This study explored the associations between gender identity, gender roles, and the number of non-life-threatening pain medication adverse effects reported as severe by people living with CP. Methods: The analyses were conducted using the COPE Cohort, a dataset generated through a web-based recruitment of adults with CP. Participants were asked how they identified themselves (women, men, unknown, unspecified) and gender roles were measured using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (subgroups were formed applying the median split method). Pain medication adverse effects were assessed using a standardized checklist (none/mild/moderate/severe). A zero-inflated Poisson model was used to assess gender identity, gender roles and their interaction as potential predictors of the number of pain medication adverse effects. Results: A total of 1,343 participants reported using pain medications. Adjusting for potential confounders, both gender identity (men vs. women: ß = -0.32, p = 0.0024) and gender roles (androgynous vs. undifferentiated: ß = 0.26, p = 0.0030) were associated with the number of pain medication adverse effects reported as severe, and they interacted with each other. The stratified analysis by gender roles showed that women reported a greater number of severe adverse effects than men among those classified as masculine and androgynous. Discussion: Although we are unable to confirm whether the associations can be explained by differences in the experience or in the reporting of effects, gender identity and gender roles should both be explored when studying pain medication adverse effects.

Chronic pain patients' willingness to share personal identifiers on the web for the linkage of medico-administrative claims and patient-reported data: The chronic pain treatment cohort.

PURPOSE: The linkage between patient-reported data and medico-administrative claims is of great interest for epidemiologic research. The goal of this study was to assess the willingness of people living with chronic pain to share personal identifiers on the web for the linkage of medico-administrative and patient-reported data. METHODS: This methodological investigation was achieved in the context of the implementation of the chronic pain treatment (COPE) cohort. A web-based recruitment initiative targeting adults living with chronic pain was conducted in the province of Quebec (Canada). RESULTS: A total of 1935 participants completed the questionnaire (mean age: 49.86 ± 13.27; females: 83.69%), 921 (47.60%) of which agreed to data linkage and shared their personal identifiers (name, date of birth, health insurance number online). The most common reasons for refusal were: (1) concerns regarding data security/privacy (25.71%) and (2) the belief that the requested data were too personal/intrusive (13.52%). Some participants did not understand the relevance of data linkage (11.81%). Participants from the COPE cohort and those from the subsample who agreed to data linkage were comparable to other random samples of chronic pain individuals in terms of age and pain characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Although approximately half of the participants refused data linkage, our approach allowed for the implementation of a data platform that contains a diverse and substantial sample. This investigation has also led to the formulation of recommendations for web-based data linkage, including placing items designed to assess willingness to share personal identifiers at the end of the questionnaire, adding explanatory videos, and using a mixed-mode questionnaire.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pharmacological, physical, and psychological treatments of pain: findings from the Chronic Pain & COVID-19 Pan-Canadian Study.

INTRODUCTION: Multimodal treatment is recognized as the optimal paradigm for the management of chronic pain (CP). Careful balance between pharmacological and physical/psychological approaches is thus desirable but can be easily disrupted. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed at exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pharmacological and physical/psychological treatments of CP. METHODS: A Pan-Canadian cross-sectional web-based study was conducted between April 16th and May 31st 2020 among adults living with CP when the country was in the ascending slope of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. RESULTS: A total of 2864 participants shared their treatment experience (mean age: 49.7 years and women: 83.5%). Among medication users (n = 2533), 38.3% reported changes in their pharmacological pain treatment. The main reasons were as follows: (1) changes in pain symptoms, (2) lack of access to prescribers/cancellation of medical appointments, and (3) increased medication intake in compensation for stopping physical/psychological treatments because of the pandemic. Among participants who used physical/psychological pain management approaches before the pandemic (n = 2467), 68.3% had to modify their treatments or self-management strategies. Common reasons were lack of access to clinics/exercise facilities and the need to compensate for having to stop another type of physical/psychological treatment because of the pandemic-related public health safety measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underlines the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to pain relief, which is considered a fundamental human right. Results will help to justify resource allocation and inform the development of interventions to be better prepared for waves to come and future health crises.

Trajectory Modelling Techniques Useful to Epidemiological Research: A Comparative Narrative Review of Approaches.

Trajectory modelling techniques have been developed to determine subgroups within a given population and are increasingly used to better understand intra- and inter-individual variability in health outcome patterns over time. The objectives of this narrative review are to explore various trajectory modelling approaches useful to epidemiological research and give an overview of their applications and differences. Guidance for reporting on the results of trajectory modelling is also covered. Trajectory modelling techniques reviewed include latent class modelling approaches, ie, growth mixture modelling (GMM), group-based trajectory modelling (GBTM), latent class analysis (LCA), and latent transition analysis (LTA). A parallel is drawn to other individual-centered statistical approaches such as cluster analysis (CA) and sequence analysis (SA). Depending on the research question and type of data, a number of approaches can be used for trajectory modelling of health outcomes measured in longitudinal studies. However, the various terms to designate latent class modelling approaches (GMM, GBTM, LTA, LCA) are used inconsistently and often interchangeably in the available scientific literature. Improved consistency in the terminology and reporting guidelines have the potential to increase researchers' efficiency when it comes to choosing the most appropriate technique that best suits their research questions.