The Problem of Pain in Rheumatology: Variations in Case Definitions Derived From Chronic Pain Phenotyping Algorithms Using Electronic Health Records.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare different case definitions for chronic pain to provide estimates of possible misclassification when researchers are limited by available electronic health record and administrative claims data, allowing for greater precision in case definitions. METHODS: We compared the prevalence of different case definitions for chronic pain (N = 3042) in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. We estimated the prevalence of chronic pain based on 15 unique combinations of pain scores, diagnostic codes, analgesic medications, and pain interventions. RESULTS: Chronic pain prevalence was lowest in unimodal pain phenotyping algorithms: 15% using analgesic medications, 18% using pain scores, 21% using pain diagnostic codes, and 22% using pain interventions. In comparison, the prevalence using a well-validated phenotyping algorithm was 37%. The prevalence of chronic pain also increased with the increasing number (bimodal to quadrimodal) of phenotyping algorithms that comprised the multimodal phenotyping algorithms. The highest estimated chronic pain prevalence (47%) was the multimodal phenotyping algorithm that combined pain scores, diagnostic codes, analgesic medications, and pain interventions. However, this quadrimodal phenotyping algorithm yielded a 10% overestimation of chronic pain compared to the well-validated algorithm. CONCLUSION: This is the first empirical study to our knowledge that shows that established common modes of phenotyping chronic pain can lead to substantially varying estimates of the number of patients with chronic pain. These findings can be a reference for biases in case definitions for chronic pain and could be used to estimate the extent of possible misclassifications or corrections in using datasets that cannot include specific data elements.

The Problem of Pain in Lupus: Epidemiological Profiles of Patients Attending Multidisciplinary Pain Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) bear a significant burden of pain. We aimed to identify factors that distinguish patients with SLE referred to comprehensive pain clinics and those who are not. Characterizing this patient population will identify unmet needs in SLE management and inform efforts to improve pain care in rheumatology. METHODS: Among patients with SLE with ≥2 rheumatology clinic visits in a large hospital system from 1998 to 2023 (n = 1319), we examined factors that distinguished those who had at least one visit to multidisciplinary pain clinics (n = 77, 5.8%) from those who did not have any visits (n = 1242, 94.2%) with a focus on biopsychosocial and socioeconomic characteristics. We extracted demographic data and ICD-9/ICD-10 codes from the EHR. RESULTS: Patients with SLE attending the pain clinics exhibited characteristics including average older age (mean age ± SD: 54.1 ± 17.9 vs. 48.4 ± 19.9), a higher likelihood of relying on public health insurance (50.7% vs. 34.2%), and a greater representation of Black patients (9.1% vs. 4.4%) compared to SLE patients not seen in pain clinics. Nearly all patients seen at the pain clinics presented with at least one chronic overlapping pain condition (96.1% vs. 58.6%), demonstrated a higher likelihood of having a mental health diagnosis (76.7% vs. 42.4%), and exhibited a greater number of comorbidities (mean ± SD: 6.0 ± 3.0 vs. 2.9 ± 2.6) compared to those not attending the pain clinic. CONCLUSION: We found notable sociodemographic and clinical differences between these patient populations. Patients presenting with multiple comorbidities might benefit from further pain screening and referral to pain clinics to provide comprehensive care, and earlier referral could mitigate the development and progression of multimorbidities.

Intensity of Chronic Low Back Pain and Activity Interference: A Daily Diary Study of the Moderating Role of Cognitive Pain Coping Strategies.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) has a significant negative impact on daily functioning, particularly for those with challenges coping adaptively with ongoing pain. However, the dynamics of pain coping in daily life remain understudied. Therefore, we examined the extent to which pain intensity interferes with daily activities, and assessed whether pain coping strategies (as assessed using daily diaries) moderated this link. METHOD: We analyzed diary data from a sample of 84 participants with CLBP who completed daily diaries for up to 30 days rating pain intensity, pain interference with daily activities, and their use of pain coping strategies, including pain rumination (i.e., repetitive thinking about the pain and its causes), reappraisal (i.e., evaluating one's pain less negatively or more positively), and distraction (i.e., diverting attention from the pain). We hypothesized that these coping strategies would moderate the associations between pain and pain interference with daily activities, although in different directions. RESULTS: Results suggest that pain rumination strengthens the association between pain intensity and pain interference both on the person and day level, while pain reappraisal and distraction weaken this association, at the day and person levels, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that those who are more preoccupied with their pain and those who are less likely to reappraise their pain have more pain interference with daily activities. These findings build on prior work on pain coping by using daily diaries and highlight two pain coping strategies that have particular relevance for reducing the impact of CLBP in daily life.

Engagement in Prescription Opioid Tapering Research: the EMPOWER Study and a Coproduction Model of Success.

Patients with chronic pain experience stigma within the healthcare system. This stigma is compounded for those taking long-term prescription opioids. Often, public messaging and organizational policies have telegraphed that opioid treatment is a problem to be solved by focusing only on medication reduction efforts. Lack of data has contributed to misperceptions and poor opioid policies. In part, data collection remains poor because patients feel fractured from systems of care and are often not interested in engaging with opioid reduction mandates and research. Similarly, clinicians may fail to engage with opioid stewardship and research due to complexities that exceed their training or capacities. The EMPOWER study applies a coproduction model that engages researchers, patients, clinicians, managers, and other health system users. Key stakeholders shaped the design of the study to best ensure acceptability and engagement of the "end users"-patients who enroll in the study and the clinicians who implement the opioid tapers. Targeting the needs of any stakeholder group in isolation is suboptimal. Accordingly, we detail the EMPOWER patient-centered opioid tapering clinical research framework and specific strategies to address stakeholder concerns. We also discuss how this framework may be applied to enhance engagement in healthcare research broadly.

Increased pain catastrophizing longitudinally predicts worsened pain severity and interference in patients with chronic pain and cancer: A collaborative health outcomes information registry study (CHOIR).

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how changes in psychosocial factors impact changes in pain outcomes among patients with cancer and chronic pain. This longitudinal cohort study of cancer patients investigated the relationships between changes in psychosocial factors and changes in pain severity and interference over time. METHODS: Data from patients with cancer and chronic pain (n = 316) treated at a tertiary pain clinic were prospectively collected. At their baseline visit (Time 1), patients provided demographic and clinical information, and completed validated psychosocial and pain assessments. Psychosocial and pain assessments were repeated at a follow-up visit (Time 2), on average 4.9 months later. Change scores (Time 2-Time 1) were computed for psychosocial and pain variables. Multivariable hierarchical linear regressions assessed the associations between changes in psychosocial factors with changes in pain outcomes over time. RESULTS: Participants were an average age of 59 years, were 61% female, and 69% White. Overall, a decrease in pain severity (p ≤ 0.001), but not pain interference, was observed among the group over time. In multivariable analyses, increased pain catastrophizing was significantly associated with increased pain severity over time (ß = 0.24, p ≤ 0.001). Similarly, increased pain catastrophizing (ß = 0.21, p ≤ 0.001) and increased depression (ß = 0.20, p ≤ 0.003) were significantly associated with increased pain interference over time. Demographic and clinical characteristics were not significantly related to changes in pain outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Increased pain catastrophizing was uniquely associated with increased chronic pain severity and interference. Our findings indicate that cancer patients with chronic pain would likely benefit from the incorporation of nonpharmacological interventions, simultaneously addressing pain and psychological symptoms.

"My Surgical Success": Feasibility and Impact of a Single-Session Digital Behavioral Pain Medicine Intervention on Pain Intensity, Pain Catastrophizing, and Time to Opioid Cessation After Orthopedic Trauma Surgery-A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral pain treatments may improve postsurgical analgesia and recovery; however, effective and scalable options are not widely available. This study tested a digital perioperative behavioral medicine intervention in orthopedic trauma surgery patients for feasibility and efficacy for reducing pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and opioid cessation up to 3 months after surgery. METHODS: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at an orthopedic trauma surgery unit at a major academic hospital to compare a digital behavioral pain management intervention ("My Surgical Success" [MSS]) to a digital general health education (HE) intervention (HE; no pain management skills). The enrolled sample included 133 patients; 84 patients were randomized (MSS, n = 37; HE, n = 47) and completed study procedures. Most patients received their assigned intervention within 3 days of surgery (85%). The sample was predominantly male (61.5%), White (61.9%), and partnered (65.5%), with at least a bachelor's degree (69.0%). Outcomes were collected at 1-3 months after intervention through self-report e-surveys and electronic medical record review; an intention-to-treat analytic framework was applied. Feasibility was dually determined by the proportion of patients engaging in their assigned treatment and an application of an 80% threshold for patient-reported acceptability. We hypothesized that MSS would result in greater reductions in pain intensity and pain catastrophizing after surgery and earlier opioid cessation compared to the digital HE control group. RESULTS: The engagement rate with assigned interventions was 63% and exceeded commonly reported rates for fully automated Internet-based e-health interventions. Feasibility was demonstrated for the MSS engagers, with >80% reporting treatment acceptability. Overall, both groups improved in the postsurgical months across all study variables. A significant interaction effect was found for treatment group over time on pain intensity, such that the MSS group evidenced greater absolute reductions in pain intensity after surgery and up to 3 months later (treatment × time fixed effects; F [215] = 5.23; P = .024). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for time to opioid cessation or for reductions in pain catastrophizing ( F [215] = 0.20; P = .653), although the study sample notably had subclinical baseline pain catastrophizing scores (M = 14.10; 95% confidence interval, 11.70-16.49). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings revealed that a fully automated behavioral pain management skills intervention (MSS) may be useful for motivated orthopedic trauma surgery patients and reduce postsurgical pain up to 3 months. MSS was not associated with reduced time to opioid cessation compared to the HE control intervention.

Durability of the Treatment Effects of an 8-Week Self-administered Home-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: 6-Month Follow-up Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the efficacy of an 8-week home-based therapeutic immersive virtual reality (VR) program in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. Community-based adults with self-reported chronic low back pain were randomized 1:1 to receive either (1) a 56-day immersive therapeutic pain relief skills VR program (EaseVRx) or (2) a 56-day sham VR program. Immediate posttreatment results revealed the superiority of therapeutic VR over sham VR for reducing pain intensity; pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress (but not sleep); physical function; and sleep disturbance. At 3 months posttreatment, therapeutic VR maintained superiority for reducing pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, and sleep (new finding). OBJECTIVE: This study assessed between-group and within-group treatment effects 6 months posttreatment to determine the extended efficacy, magnitude of efficacy, and clinical importance of home-based therapeutic VR. METHODS: E-surveys were deployed at pretreatment, end-of-treatment, and posttreatment months 1, 2, 3, and 6. Self-reported data for 188 participants were analyzed in a mixed-model framework using a marginal model to allow for correlated responses across the repeated measures. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, stress, and sleep at 6 months posttreatment. Secondary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) sleep disturbance and physical function. RESULTS: Therapeutic VR maintained significant and clinically meaningful effects 6 months posttreatment and remained superior to sham VR for reducing pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, and sleep (ds=0.44-0.54; P<.003). Between-group comparisons for physical function and sleep disturbance showed superiority of EaseVRx over sham VR (ds=0.34; P=.02 and ds=0.46; P<.001, respectively). Participants were encouraged to contact study staff with any problems experienced during treatment; however, no participants contacted study staff to report adverse events of any type, including nausea and motion sickness. CONCLUSIONS: Our 8-week home-based VR pain management program caused important reductions in pain intensity and interference up to 6 months after treatment. Additional studies are needed in diverse samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/25291.

Correction: Durability of the Treatment Effects of an 8-Week Self-administered Home-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: 6-Month Follow-up Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/37480.].

Chronic pain severity, impact, and opioid use among patients with cancer: An analysis of biopsychosocial factors using the CHOIR learning health care system.

BACKGROUND: Despite the biopsychosocial underpinnings of chronic noncancer pain, relatively little is known about the contribution of psychosocial factors to chronic cancer pain. The authors aimed to characterize associations between biopsychosocial factors and pain and opioid use among individuals with chronic pain and cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 700 patients with chronic pain and cancer seeking treatment at an academic tertiary pain clinic. Patients completed demographic questionnaires and validated psychosocial and pain measures. Multivariable, hierarchical linear and logistic regressions assessed the relative contributions of biopsychosocial factors to the primary dependent variables of pain severity, pain interference, and opioid use. RESULTS: Participants were 62% female and 66% White with a mean age of 59 ± 15 years, and 55% held a college degree or higher. Older age, African American or "other" race, sleep disturbance, and pain catastrophizing were significantly associated with higher pain severity (F(5,657) = 22.45; P ≤ .001; R2 = 0.22). Depression, sleep disturbance, pain catastrophizing, lower emotional support, and higher pain severity were significantly associated with pain interference (F(5,653) = 9.47; P ≤ .001; R2 = 0.44). Lastly, a poor cancer prognosis (Exp(B) = 1.62) and sleep disturbance (Exp(B) = 1.02) were associated with taking opioids, whereas identifying as Asian (Exp(B) = 0.48) or Hispanic (Exp(B) = 0.47) was associated with lower odds of using opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable psychological factors-specifically sleep disturbance, depression, and pain catastrophizing-were uniquely associated with pain and opioid use in patients with chronic pain and diverse cancer diagnoses. Future behavioral pain interventions that concurrently target sleep may improve pain among patients with cancer. LAY SUMMARY: Feeling depressed, worrying about pain, and bad sleep are related to higher pain symptoms in individuals with chronic pain and cancer. Specifically, those who struggle to sleep have worse pain and use more opioids. Also, individuals who have a bad prognosis for their cancer are more likely to be using opioid pain medications. Although race and cancer are related to chronic pain in patients, psychological well-being is also strongly related to this same pain.

Customizing CAT Administration of the PROMIS Misuse of Prescription Pain Medication Item Bank for Patients with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The 22-item PROMIS®-Rx Pain Medication Misuse item bank (Bank-22) imposes a high response burden. This study aimed to characterize the performance of the Bank-22 in a computer adaptive testing (CAT) setting based on varied stopping rules. METHODS: The 22 items were administered to 288 patients. We performed a CAT simulation using default stopping rules (CATPROMIS). In 5 other simulations, a "best health" response rule was added to decrease response burden. This rule stopped CAT administration when a participant selected "never" to a specified number of initial Bank-22 items (2-6 in this study, designated CATAlt2-Alt6). The Bank-22 and 7-item short form (SF-7) scores were compared to scores based on CATPROMIS, and the 5 CAT variations. RESULTS: Bank-22 scores correlated highly with the SF-7 and CATPROMIS, Alt5, Alt6 scores (r=0.87-0.95) and moderately with CATAlt2- Alt4 scores (r=0.63-0.74). In all CAT conditions, the greatest differences with Bank-22 scores were at the lower end of misuse T-scores. The smallest differences with Bank-22 and CATPROMIS scores were observed with CATAlt5 and CATAlt6. Compared to the SF-7, CATAlt5 and CATAlt6 reduced overall response burden by about 42%. Finally, the correlations between PROMIS-Rx Misuse and Anxiety T-scores remained relatively unchanged across the conditions (r=0.31-0.43, Ps < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Applying a stopping rule based on number of initial "best health" responses reduced response burden for respondents with lower levels of misuse. The tradeoff was less measurement precision for those individuals, which could be an acceptable tradeoff when the chief concern is in discriminating higher levels of misuse.

Efficacy of a Single-Session "Empowered Relief" Zoom-Delivered Group Intervention for Chronic Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial Conducted During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy-pain is an evidence-based treatment for chronic pain that can have significant patient burden, including health care cost, travel, multiple sessions, and lack of access in remote areas. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to pilot test the efficacy of a single-session videoconference-delivered empowered relief (ER) intervention compared to waitlist control (WLC) conditions among individuals with chronic pain. We hypothesized that ER would be superior to WLC in reducing pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, and other pain-related outcomes at 1-3 months posttreatment. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial involving a web-based sample of adults (N=104) aged 18-80 years with self-reported chronic pain. Participants were randomized (1:1) to 1 of 2 unblinded study groups: ER (50/104, 48.1%) and WLC (54/104, 51.9%). Participants allocated to ER completed a Zoom-delivered class, and all participants completed follow-up surveys at 2 weeks and 1, 2, and 3 months posttreatment. All the study procedures were performed remotely and electronically. The primary outcome was pain catastrophizing 1-month posttreatment, with pain intensity, pain bothersomeness, and sleep disruption as secondary outcomes. We also report a more rigorous test of the durability of treatment effects at 3 months posttreatment. Data were collected from September 2020 to February 2021 and analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis. The analytic data set included participants (18/101, 17.8% clinic patients; 83/101, 82.1% community) who completed at least one study survey: ER (50/101, 49.5%) and WLC (51/104, 49%). RESULTS: Participants (N=101) were 69.3% (70/101) female, with a mean age of 49.76 years (SD 13.90; range 24-78); 32.7% (33/101) had an undergraduate degree and self-reported chronic pain for 3 months. Participants reported high engagement (47/50, 94%), high satisfaction with ER (mean 8.26, SD 1.57; range 0-10), and high satisfaction with the Zoom platform (46/50, 92%). For the between-groups factor, ER was superior to WLC for all primary and secondary outcomes at 3 months posttreatment (highest P<.001), and between-groups Cohen d effect sizes ranged from 0.45 to 0.79, indicating that the superiority was of moderate to substantial clinical importance. At 3 months, clinically meaningful pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) reductions were found for ER but not for WLC (ER: PCS -8.72, 42.25% reduction; WLC: PCS -2.25, 11.13% reduction). ER resulted in significant improvements in pain intensity, sleep disturbance, and clinical improvements in pain bothersomeness. CONCLUSIONS: Zoom-delivered ER had high participant satisfaction and very high engagement. Among adults with chronic pain, this single-session, Zoom-delivered, skills-based pain class resulted in clinically significant improvement across a range of pain-related outcomes that was sustained at 3 months. Web-based delivery of ER could allow greater accessibility of home-based pain treatment and could address the inconveniences and barriers faced by patients when attempting to receive in-person care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04546685; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04546685.

An 8-Week Self-Administered At-Home Behavioral Skills-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Conducted During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a double-blind, parallel-arm, single-cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported nonmalignant low back pain with duration of 6 months or more and with average pain intensity of 4 or more/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 daily (56-day) VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (immersive pain relief skills VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were the between-group effect of EaseVRx versus Sham VR across time points, and the between-within interaction effect representing the change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep over time (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. RESULTS: The study sample was 179 adults (female: 76.5%, 137/179; Caucasian: 90.5%, 162/179; at least some college education: 91.1%, 163/179; mean age: 51.5 years [SD 13.1]; average pain intensity: 5/10 [SD 1.2]; back pain duration ≥5 years: 67%, 120/179). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx versus Sham VR (P<.001). For the between-groups factor, EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes (highest P value=.009), and between-groups Cohen d effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.49, indicating superiority was moderately clinically meaningful. For EaseVRx, large pre-post effect sizes ranged from 1.17 to 1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. Between-group comparisons for Physical Function and Sleep Disturbance showed superiority for the EaseVRx group versus the Sham VR group (P=.022 and .013, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, pain acceptance, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (P<.01) but not for Sham VR. CONCLUSIONS: EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/25291.

Lack of Premeditation Predicts Aberrant Behaviors Related to Prescription Opioids in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: In light of the opioid epidemic, there is a need to identify factors that predict aberrant opioid behaviors including misuse and abuse. Impulsivity has been extensively studied in addiction literature, but not in the context of opioid misuse. Hence, this study aimed to identify which of the impulsivity facets (negative urgency, positive urgency, sensation seeking, lack of perseverance, and lack of premeditation) would predict current aberrant opioid-related behaviors in patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Data were collected through an online survey from patients with chronic pain who visited a tertiary pain clinic. Patients were predominately female (74%), middle aged (M = 55 years), and White/Caucasian (84%). Upon consent, they completed a series of surveys including UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale, the Current Opioid misuse Measure, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PROMIS-anxiety, depression, and physical function, and a 0-10 numerical pain rating scale. Ordinal regression analyses were conducted to test study hypotheses. RESULTS: Contrary to expectations, only lack of premeditation predicted higher odds of aberrant opioid-related behaviors in the past 30 days, after controlling for known covariates, and explained 26% of variance. Interestingly, lack of premeditation together with pain catastrophizing as a covariate explained 56% of the variance in aberrant opioid-related behaviors. DISCUSSION: The current study is the first to identify a potential role of lack of premeditation as an impulsivity facet predicting aberrant opioid-related behaviors among patients with chronic pain.

Perceived Injustice Mediates the Relationship Between Perceived Childhood Neglect and Current Function in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Preliminary Pilot Study.

Cumulative evidence supports the association between perceived childhood neglect and adulthood psychological and physical health. To date, pathways mediating this association remain largely unknown, though other evidence suggests that negative patterns of appraisal, including injustice perception related to pain, may be shaped by prior adverse social experiences. Consequently, the current study examined perceived injustice about chronic pain as a possible factor connecting childhood neglect and pain-related outcomes, given its relevance for both adaptation to chronic pain and to prior adverse life experiences. Patients (n = 742) visiting a tertiary pain clinic completed a survey administered via the Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry. Path modeling analyses were used to examine perceived injustice as a mediator of the relationships between childhood neglect and affective distress and physical function, after controlling for pain intensity and pain catastrophizing. Patients endorsing childhood neglect reported higher levels of perceived injustice and worse affective distress and physical function. Further, inclusion of perceived injustice as a mediator fully accounted for the relationship between neglect and current levels of physical function, and accounted for a significant proportion of the relationship between neglect and current levels of affective distress. These preliminary findings suggest that perceived injustice appears to be a more proximal factor by which prior experiences of neglect may adversely affect adaptation to chronic pain. Given the single-item assessment of childhood neglect and cross-sectional nature of the current findings, further research may focus on replicating these findings in longitudinal studies with validated measures and examining other adverse social experiences (e.g., abuse, social disparities) that may contribute to injustice perception and poor pain-related outcomes.

Promoting Patient-Centeredness in Opioid Deprescribing: a Blueprint for De-implementation Science.

A downward trend in opioid prescribing between 2011 and 2018 has brought per-capita opioid prescriptions below the levels of 2006, the earliest year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published data. That trend has affected roughly ten million patients who previously received long-term opioid therapy. Any effort to reduce or replace a prior health practice is termed de-implementation. We suggest that the evaluation of opioid prescribing de-implementation has been misdirected, within US policy and health research, resulting in detrimental impacts on patients, their families and clinicians. Policymakers and implementation scientists can address these deficiencies in how we study and how we perform opioid de-implementation by applying an implementation science framework: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The Consolidated Framework lays out relevant domains of activity (internal, external, etc.) that influence implementation processes and outcomes. It can deepen our understanding of how policies are chosen, communicated, and carried out. Policymakers and researchers who embrace this framework will need a better approach to measuring success and failure in health care where both pain and opioids are concerned. This would involve shifting from a reductive focus on opioid prescription counts toward measures that are more effective, holistic, and patient-centered.

Negative Affect-Related Factors Have the Strongest Association with Prescription Opioid Misuse in a Cross-Sectional Cohort of Patients with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Increased opioid prescription to relieve pain among patients with chronic pain is associated with increased risk for misuse, potentially leading to substance use disorders and overdose death. We aimed to characterize the relative importance and identify the most significant of several potential risk factors for the severity of self-reported prescribed opioid misuse behaviors. METHODS: A sample of 1,193 patients (mean age ± SD = 50.72 ± 14.97 years, 64.04% female) with various chronic pain conditions completed a multidimensional registry assessing four pain severity measures and 14 physical, mental, and social health status factors using the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). A validated PROMIS measure of medication misuse was completed by 692 patients who endorsed currently taking opioid medication. Patients taking opioid medications were compared across all measures with those who do not take opioid medications. Subsequently, a data-driven regression analysis was used to determine which measures best explained variability in severity of misuse. We hypothesized that negative affect-related factors, namely anxiety, anger, and/or depression, would be key predictors of misuse severity due to their crucial role in chronic pain and substance use disorders. RESULTS: Patients taking opioid medications had significantly greater impairment across most measures. Above and beyond demographic variables, the only and most significant predictors of prescribed opioid misuse severity were as follows: anxiety (ß = 0.15, P = 0.01), anger (ß = 0.13, P = 0.02), Pain Intensity-worst (ß = 0.09, P = 0.02), and depression (ß = 0.13, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that anxiety, anger, and depression are key factors associated with prescribed opioid misuse tendencies in patients with chronic pain and that they are potential targets for therapeutic intervention.

Comparative Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain and Chronic Pain Self-Management within the Context of Voluntary Patient-Centered Prescription Opioid Tapering: The EMPOWER Study Protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence to date, while sparse, suggests that patients taking long-term opioids require special considerations and protections to prevent potential iatrogenic harms from opioid de-prescribing, such as increased pain or suffering. Following this study protocol, the EMPOWER study seeks to address multiple unmet needs of patients with chronic pain who desire to reduce long-term opioid therapy, and provide the clinical evidence on effective methodology. METHODS: EMPOWER applies patient-centered methods for voluntary prescription opioid reduction conducted within a comprehensive, multi-state, 3-arm randomized controlled comparative effectiveness study of three study arms (1) group cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain; (2) group chronic pain self-management; and (3) usual care (taper only). Specialized electronic data capture systems collect patient reported symptoms and satisfaction data weekly and monthly during the taper, with real-time clinical alerts and electronic feedback loops informing, documenting, and steering needed care actions. CONCLUSION: The EMPOWER study seeks to provide granular evidence on patient response to voluntary opioid tapering, and will provide evidence to inform clinical systems changes, clinical care, patient satisfaction, and patient outcomes for opioid reduction.

Evaluation of Candidate Items for Severe PTSD Screening for Patients With Chronic Pain: Pilot Data Analysis With the IRT Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) commonly co-occurs with chronic pain. Although PTSD symptoms are associated with negative health outcomes in patients with chronic pain, PTSD is typically under-detected and under-treated in outpatient pain settings. There is a need for rapid, brief screening tools to identify those at greatest risk for severe PTSD symptoms. To achieve that goal, our aim was to use item response theory (IRT) to identify the most informative PTSD symptoms characterizing severe PTSD in patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Fifty-six patients (71% female, 61% White) with mixed etiology chronic pain completed the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C) as part of their appointment with a pain psychologist at a tertiary outpatient pain clinic. We used an IRT approach to evaluate each item's discriminant (a) and severity (b) parameters. RESULTS: Findings revealed that "feeling upset at reminders" (a = 3.67, b = 2.44) and "avoid thinking or talking about it" (a = 3.61, b = 2.17) as being highly discriminant for severe PTSD. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 2 candidate items for a brief PTSD screener as they were associated with severe PTSD symptoms. These 2 items may provide clinical utility in outpatient pain treatment settings to identify those suffering from severe PTSD, enabling physicians to refer them to trauma-specific evaluation or therapy. Future research is needed to further validate and confirm these candidate PTSD items in a larger clinic sample. LAY SUMMARY: The current study used the IRT approach to identify candidate items for a brief screener for severe PTSD. We examined 17 items of the PCL-C, and identified 2 items that were highly discriminant for severe PTSD. The 2 items were "feeling upset at reminders" and "avoid thinking or talking about it." These 2 items may provide clinical utility, since they may enable physicians to screen and make a referral for further assessment or treatment for PTSD.

"My Surgical Success": Effect of a Digital Behavioral Pain Medicine Intervention on Time to Opioid Cessation After Breast Cancer Surgery-A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the feasibility of digital perioperative behavioral pain medicine intervention in breast cancer surgery and evaluate its impact on pain catastrophizing, pain, and opioid cessation after surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at Stanford University (Palo Alto, CA, USA) comparing a digital behavioral pain medicine intervention ("My Surgical Success" [MSS]) with digital general health education (HE). PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 127 participants were randomized to treatment group. The analytic sample was 68 patients (N = 36 MSS, N = 32 HE). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was feasibility and acceptability of a digital behavioral pain medicine intervention (80% threshold for acceptability items). Secondary outcomes were pain catastrophizing, past seven-day average pain intensity, and time to opioid cessation after surgery for patients who initiated opioid use. RESULTS: The attrition rate for MSS intervention (44%) was notably higher than for HE controls (18%), but it was lower than typical attrition rates for e-health interventions (60-80%). Despite greater attrition for MSS, feasibility was demonstrated for the 56% of MSS engagers, and the 80% threshold for acceptability was met. We observed a floor effect for baseline pain catastrophizing, and no significant group differences were found for postsurgical pain catastrophizing or pain intensity. MSS was associated with 86% increased odds of opioid cessation within the 12-week study period relative to HE controls (hazard ratio = 1.86, 95% confidence interval = 1.12-3.10, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Fifty-six percent of patients assigned to MSS engaged with the online platform and reported high satisfaction. MSS was associated with significantly accelerated opioid cessation after surgery (five-day difference) with no difference in pain report relative to controls. Perioperative digital behavioral pain medicine may be a low-cost, accessible adjunct that could promote opioid cessation after breast cancer surgery.