Variability in the prevalence of depression among adults with chronic pain: UK Biobank analysis through clinical prediction models.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression among people with chronic pain remains unclear due to the heterogeneity of study samples and definitions of depression. We aimed to identify sources of variation in the prevalence of depression among people with chronic pain and generate clinical prediction models to estimate the probability of depression among individuals with chronic pain. METHODS: Participants were from the UK Biobank. The primary outcome was a "lifetime" history of depression. The model's performance was evaluated using discrimination (optimism-corrected C statistic) and calibration (calibration plot). RESULTS: Analyses included 24,405 patients with chronic pain (mean age 64.1 years). Among participants with chronic widespread pain, the prevalence of having a "lifetime" history of depression was 45.7% and varied (25.0-66.7%) depending on patient characteristics. The final clinical prediction model (optimism-corrected C statistic: 0.66; good calibration on the calibration plot) included age, BMI, smoking status, physical activity, socioeconomic status, gender, history of asthma, history of heart failure, and history of peripheral artery disease. Among participants with chronic regional pain, the prevalence of having a "lifetime" history of depression was 30.2% and varied (21.4-70.6%) depending on patient characteristics. The final clinical prediction model (optimism-corrected C statistic: 0.65; good calibration on the calibration plot) included age, gender, nature of pain, smoking status, regular opioid use, history of asthma, pain location that bothers you most, and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variability in the prevalence of depression among patients with chronic pain. Clinically relevant factors were selected to develop prediction models. Clinicians can use these models to assess patients' treatment needs. These predictors are convenient to collect during daily practice, making it easy for busy clinicians to use them.

A digital health intervention to support patients with chronic pain during prescription opioid tapering: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Introduction: Recent changes in opioid prescribing guidelines have led to an increasing number of patients with chronic pain being recommended to taper. However, opioid tapering can be challenging, and many patients require support. Objectives: We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a codesigned digital health intervention to support patients with chronic pain during voluntary prescription opioid tapering. Methods: In a pilot randomised controlled trial, participants received a psychoeducational video and 28 days of text messages (2 SMS/day) in addition to their usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). The feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of the intervention were evaluated. The primary outcome was opioid tapering self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and interference, anxiety and depression symptom severity, pain catastrophising, and pain self-efficacy. Results: Of 28 randomised participants, 26 completed the study (13 per group). Text message delivery was high (99.2%), but fidelity of video delivery was low (57.1%). Most participants rated the messages as useful, supportive, encouraging, and engaging; 78.5% would recommend the intervention to others; and 64.2% desired a longer intervention period. Tapering self-efficacy (Cohen d = 0.74) and pain self-efficacy (d = 0.41) were higher, and pain intensity (d = 0.65) and affective interference (d = 0.45) were lower in the intervention group at week 4. Conclusion: First evidence supports the feasibility, acceptability, and potentially efficacy of a psychoeducational video and SMS text messaging intervention to support patients with chronic pain during voluntary prescription opioid tapering. Definitive trials with longer intervention duration are warranted.

Optimal cut-offs of depression screening tools during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported an increase in the prevalence of depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. The accuracy of screening tools may change with the prevalence and distribution of a disease in a population or sample: the "Spectrum Effect". METHODS: First, we selected commonly used screening tools and developed search strategies for the inclusion of original studies during the pandemic. Second, we searched PsycINFO, EMBASE, and MEDLINE from March 2020 to September 2022 to obtain original studies that investigated the accuracy of depression screening tools during the pandemic. We then searched these databases to identify meta-analyses summarizing the accuracy of these tools conducted before the pandemic and compared the optimal cut-offs for depression screening tools during the pandemic with those before. RESULT: Four original studies evaluating the optimal cut-offs for four screening tools (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI-II], Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression [HADS-D], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], and Geriatric Depression Scale-4 [GDS-4]) were published during the pandemic. Four meta-analyses summarizing these tools before the pandemic. We found that the optimal cut-off of BDI-II was 14 during the pandemic (23.8% depression prevalence, screening patients with Type 2 diabetes) and 14.5 before the pandemic (17.6% depression prevalence, screening psychiatric, primary care, and healthy populations); HADS-D was 10 during the pandemic (23.8% depression prevalence, screening patients with type 2 diabetes) and 7 before the pandemic (15.0% depression prevalence, screening medically ill patients); PHQ-9 was 11 during the pandemic (14.5% depression prevalence, screening university students) and 8 before the pandemic (10.9% depression prevalence, screening the unrestricted population), and GDS-4 was 1.8 during the pandemic (29.0% depression prevalence, screening adults seen in a memory clinic setting) and 3 before the pandemic (18.5% depression prevalence, screening older adults). CONCLUSION: The optimal cut-off for different screening tools may be sensitive to changes in study populations and reference standards. And potential spectrum effects that should be considered in post-COVID time which aiming to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Text messaging intervention to support patients with chronic pain during prescription opioid tapering: protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Increases in pain and interference with quality of life is a common concern among people with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) who are tapering opioid medications. Research indicates that access to social and psychological support for pain self-management may help people to reduce their opioid dose without increasing pain and interference. This study evaluates the efficacy of a text messaging intervention designed to provide people with CNCP with social and psychological support for pain self-management while tapering long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) under the guidance of their prescriber. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A double-blind randomised controlled trial will be conducted. Patients with CNCP (n=74) who are tapering LTOT will be enrolled from across Australia. Participants will continue with their usual care while tapering LTOT under the supervision of their prescribing physician. They will randomly receive either a psychoeducational video and supportive text messaging (two Short Message Service (SMS) per day) for 12 weeks or the video only. The primary outcome is the pain intensity and interference assessed by the Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity scale. Secondary outcomes include mood, self-efficacy, pain cognitions, opioid dose reduction, withdrawal symptoms, and acceptability, feasibility, and safety of the intervention. Participants will complete questionnaires at baseline and then every 4 weeks for 12 weeks and will be interviewed at week 12. This trial will provide evidence for the efficacy of a text messaging intervention to support patients with CNCP who are tapering LTOT. If proven to be efficacious and safe, this low-cost intervention can be implemented at scale. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Northern Sydney Local Health District (Australia). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific and professional meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001423707.

Experiences of misuse and symptoms of dependence among people who use gabapentinoids: a qualitative systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Gabapentinoids are among the most widely prescribed pain medications. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that gabapentinoids may be associated with dependence and misuse. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the qualitative literature on gabapentinoid misuse and symptoms of dependence. The findings of this study will inform efforts to mitigate emerging harms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review of qualitative research will explore lived experiences of misuse and symptoms of dependence among people who use gabapentinoids. Six databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO) and grey literature sources will be searched from inception to May 2023. Qualitative studies that include people with lived experiences of gabapentinoid misuse and symptoms of gabapentinoid dependence will be included. Reference lists of included studies will also be screened for additional studies. The methodological quality of included studies will be appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist, and higher quality studies will be prioritised in the thematic synthesis. The GRADE-CERQual approach will be used to assess confidence in the overall findings of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The findings of this review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at conferences and on social media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023401832.

"We were all looking for the magic pill": A qualitative study of patient experiences using gabapentinoids for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentinoid medications are increasingly being used in chronic pain management, yet very little is known about the experiences of those using them. The aim of this study was to address this gap in the literature by qualitatively exploring the lived experiences of patients using gabapentinoids for chronic pain. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 adults prescribed a gabapentinoid medication - either pregabalin or gabapentin - for chronic pain in Australia. Interviews were conducted in May 2022 via telephone or online video chat. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim, and data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The Medication Adherence Model was used as a framework for synthesising the data and organising themes. RESULTS: For participants in this study, the initial decision to use gabapentinoids for chronic pain was driven by a level of desperation for pain relief, a perceived lack of pain management alternatives, and a belief that the medication was safer and easier to access than opioids. However, once using gabapentinoids, experiences varied considerably with some viewing the medication as effective and safe, and others viewing it as useless or harmful. Some participants expressed concern that they were not adequately informed by their prescribers about the risks of gabapentinoid use. CONCLUSION: These findings emphasise the importance of patient-provider communication and taking a patient-centred approach to gabapentinoid prescribing and de-prescribing. Future qualitative research in this area should involve primary care providers to gain a better understanding of factors driving increased gabapentinoid prescribing in chronic pain management as well as barriers to patient education.

A digital health intervention to support patients with chronic pain during prescription opioid tapering: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Introduction: Recent changes in opioid prescribing guidelines have led to an increasing number of patients with chronic pain being recommended to taper. However, opioid tapering can be challenging, and many patients require support. Objectives: We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a co-designed psycho-educational video and SMS text messaging intervention to support patients with chronic pain during prescription opioid tapering. Methods: A pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted. In addition to their usual care, participants in the intervention group received a psycho-educational video and 28 days of text messages (two SMS/day). The control group received usual care. The feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of the intervention were evaluated. The primary outcome was opioid tapering self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and interference, anxiety and depression symptom severity, pain catastrophising, and pain self-efficacy. Results: Of 28 randomised participants, 26 completed the study (13 in each group). Text message delivery was 99.2% successful. Most participants rated the messages as useful, supportive, encouraging, and engaging, 78.5% would recommend the intervention to others, and 64% desired a longer intervention period. Tapering self-efficacy (Cohen's d = 0.74) and pain self-efficacy (d = 0.41) were higher and pain intensity (d = 0.65) and affective interference (d = 0.45) lower in the intervention group at week 4. Conclusions: It is feasible, acceptable, and potentially efficacious to support patients with chronic pain during prescription opioid tapering with a psycho-educational video and SMS text messaging intervention. A definitive trial has been initiated to test a 12-week intervention.

Interest in Digital Peer-Delivered Interventions and Preferences to Improve Pain Self-efficacy and Reduce Loneliness Among Patients With Chronic Pain: Mixed Methods Co-design Study.

BACKGROUND: Two important factors that prolong and exacerbate chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and disability are low pain self-efficacy and loneliness. Yet, few interventions have shown long-term sustained improvements in pain self-efficacy, and there are no evidence-based treatments that target social connectedness in people living with CNCP. More effective and accessible interventions designed to target self-efficacy and social connectedness could ease the burden of CNCP. OBJECTIVE: To co-design accessible interventions to increase pain self-efficacy, social connection, pain-related outcomes, and quality of life, this study explored patients' interest and preferences for digital peer-delivered interventions for CNCP as well as implementation barriers and enablers. METHODS: This cross-sectional mixed methods study was part of a larger longitudinal cohort study. Adult Australian residents (N=186) with CNCP diagnosed by a medical professional or pain specialist were included. Participants were initially recruited through advertising on professional pain social media accounts and websites. Questions examined whether patients were interested in digital peer-delivered interventions and their preferences for specific features (eg, Newsfeed). Pain self-efficacy and loneliness were assessed using validated questionnaires, and the association between these factors and interest in digital peer-delivered support was explored. Open-ended questions explored implementation barriers, enablers, and suggestions for consideration in intervention design. RESULTS: There was interest in accessing digital peer-delivered interventions, with almost half of the sample indicating that they would access it if it was available. Those who indicated an interest in digital peer interventions reported both lower pain self-efficacy and greater loneliness than those who were not interested. Intervention content that incorporated education, links to health services and resources, and delivery of support by peer coaches were the most frequently preferred intervention features. Three potential benefits were identified: shared experience, social connection, and shared pain management solutions. Five potential barriers were identified: negative focus on pain, judgment, lack of engagement, negative impact on mental health, privacy and security concerns, and unmet personal preferences. Finally, there were 8 suggestions from participants: moderation of the group, interest subgroups, professional-led activities, psychological strategies, links to professional pain resources, newsletter, motivational content, live streaming, and online meetups. CONCLUSIONS: Digital peer-delivered interventions were of particular interest to those with CNCP who had lower levels of pain self-efficacy and higher levels of loneliness. Future co-design work could tailor digital peer-delivered interventions to these unmet needs. Intervention preferences and implementation barriers and enablers identified in this study could guide further co-design and the development of such interventions.

The Natural Helper approach to culturally responsive disease management: protocol for a type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomised controlled trial of a cultural mentor programme.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic disease is a leading cause of death and disability that disproportionately burdens culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. Self-management is a cornerstone of effective chronic disease management. However, research suggests that patients from CALD communities may be less likely to engage with self-management approaches. The Natural Helper Programme aims to facilitate patient engagement with self-management approaches (ie, 'activation') by embedding cultural mentors with lived experience of chronic disease into chronic disease clinics/programmes. The Natural Helper Trial will explore the effect of cultural mentors on patient activation, health self-efficacy, coping efforts and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) while also evaluating the implementation strategy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A hybrid type-1 effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomised controlled trial (phase one) and a mixed-method controlled before-and-after cohort extension of the trial (phase 2). Hospital clinics in highly multicultural regions in Australia that provide healthcare for patients with chronic and/or complex conditions, will participate. A minimum of 16 chronic disease clinics (clusters) will be randomised to immediate (active arm) or delayed implementation (control arm). In phase 1, the active arm will receive a multifaceted strategy supporting them to embed cultural mentors in their services while the control arm continues with usual care. Each cluster will recruit an average of 15 patients, assessed at baseline and 6 months (n=240). In phase 2, clusters in the control arm will receive the implementation strategy and evaluate the intervention on an additional 15 patients per cluster, while sustainability in active arm clusters will be assessed qualitatively. Change in activation over 6 months, measured using the Patient Activation Measure will be the primary effectiveness outcome, while secondary effectiveness outcomes will explore changes in chronic disease self-efficacy, coping strategies and HRQoL. Secondary implementation outcomes will be collected from patient-participants, mentors and healthcare providers using validated questionnaires, customised surveys and interviews aligning with the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework to evaluate acceptability, reach, dose delivered, sustainability, cost-utility and healthcare provider determinants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has full ethical approval (2021/ETH12279). The results from this hybrid trial will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000697785.

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 countries (77.3% from the U.S.). The sample was mainly female (82.1%), with a mean age of 41.62 (SD 12.03) years; 95% reported ongoing pain and pain duration > 10 years (68.4%). Forty-five percent (n = 1,295) had heard of the term pain catastrophizing; 12% (n = 349) reported being described as a 'pain catastrophizer' by a clinician with associated high levels of feeling blamed, judged, and dismissed. We present qualitative thematic data analytics for responses to open-ended questions, with 32% of responses highlighting the problematic nature of the term. We present the patients' perspective on the term pain catastrophizing, its material effect on clinical experiences, and associations with negative gender stereotypes. Use of patient-centered terminology may be important for favorably shaping the social context of patients' experience of pain and pain care. PERSPECTIVE: Our international patient survey found that 45% had heard of the term pain catastrophizing, about one-third spontaneously rated the term as problematic, and 12% reported the term was applied to them with most stating this was a negative experience. Clinician education on patient-centered terminology may improve care and reduce stigma.

Influence of Initial Health Care Provider on Subsequent Health Care Utilization for Patients With a New Onset of Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to examine the scope of evidence for the influence of a nonmedical initial provider on health care utilization and outcomes in people with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: Using scoping review methodology, we conducted an electronic search of 4 databases from inception to June 2021. Studies investigating the management of patients with a new onset of LBP by a nonmedical initial health care provider were identified. Pairs of reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and eligible full-text studies. We extracted health care utilization and patient outcomes and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Two reviewers descriptively analyzed the data and categorized findings by outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 26,462 citations were screened, and 11 studies were eligible. Studies were primarily retrospective cohort designs using claims-based data. Four studies had a low risk of bias. Five health care outcomes were identified: medication, imaging, care seeking, cost of care, and health care procedures. Patient outcomes included patient satisfaction and functional recovery. Compared with patients initiating care with medical providers, those initiating care with a nonmedical provider showed associations with reduced opioid prescribing and imaging ordering rates but increased rates of care seeking. Results for cost of care, health care procedures, and patient outcomes were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing nonmedical providers at the first point of care may decrease the use of low-value care, such as opioid prescribing and imaging referral, but may lead to an increased number of health care visits in the care of people with LBP. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings. IMPACT: This scoping review provides preliminary evidence that nonmedical practitioners, as initial providers, may help reduce opioid prescription and selective imaging in people with LBP. The trend observed in this scoping review has important implications for pathways of care and the role of nonmedical providers, such as physical therapists, within primary health care systems. LAY SUMMARY: This scoping review provides preliminary evidence that nonmedical practitioners, as initial providers, might help reduce opioid prescription and selective imaging in people with LBP. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Are group identity and sense of belonging relevant for group pain management programmes? An exploratory pilot study.

Introduction: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT)-based programmes for chronic pain are often conducted in groups, most likely for time and cost efficiencies. However, there has been very little investigation of the role that the group itself, and particularly the processes occurring within the group, may play in individual outcomes. The objective of this study was to explore whether social group processes were relevant to key treatment outcomes of group CBT for chronic pain. Method: Data were collected from 15 groups (N = 118) undertaking a pain management programme in a tertiary setting. Intraclass correlations were computed to determine any clustering of outcomes in groups, and linear mixed modelling analysis explored pre-registered hypotheses of associations between treatment outcomes and the social group processes of Group Identification and Sense of Belonging. Results: A weak association between early identification with the group and changes in pain-related disability was shown. In addition, an enhanced global Sense of Belonging was associated with increased pain self-efficacy. Conclusion: These associations, in a programme that had not been designed to address group processes, suggest that their relevance is worth further investigation, particularly in group programmes that do focus on the social consequences of chronic pain. Future studies should investigate whether manipulation of social group processes within a CBT-based pain programme enhances pain-related outcomes and improves the overall well-being of people with chronic pain.

A Digital Video and Text Messaging Intervention to Support People With Chronic Pain During Opioid Tapering: Content Development Using Co-design.

BACKGROUND: People living with chronic pain report that tapering prescribed opioids is challenging and more support is needed. In our formative research, consumers indicated that mobile health (mHealth) technology could be an acceptable form of support for opioid tapering and may improve tapering self-efficacy. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate and improve the content of an mHealth intervention before pilot-testing, based on consumer and clinician feedback. METHODS: Participants were 12 consumers and 12 clinicians who evaluated an initial draft of a video script and 90 SMS text messages. Consumers and clinicians rated the appropriateness and likely usefulness (consumers) or likely effectiveness (clinicians) of a video script and a random selection of 15 SMS text messages using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=totally disagree; 5=totally agree). Each draft SMS text message was reviewed by 2 consumers and 2 clinicians. Texts were deemed acceptable for inclusion in the pilot intervention only if the summed participant ratings of text appropriateness and usefulness or effectiveness were ≥8. Participants were also invited to provide open-text feedback on the draft script and SMS text messages. RESULTS: Consumers generally agreed that the draft video script and text content were likely to be appropriate (video: mean 4.4, SD 0.52; text: mean 4.3, SD 0.79) and useful (video: mean 4.3, SD 0.65; text: mean 4.2, SD 0.84). Similarly, clinicians generally agreed that the draft video script and text content were likely to be appropriate (video: mean 4.5, SD 0.67; text: mean 4.4, SD 0.81) and effective (video: mean 4.0, SD 0.43; text: mean 4.3, SD 0.76). Overall, 77% (69/90) of the draft texts met the threshold rating for acceptability for inclusion in the pilot test of mHealth intervention by consumers, and 82% (74/90) met the threshold for acceptability by clinicians. Consumers' and clinicians' ratings were used to rank order the texts. The top 56 draft texts (all meeting the threshold levels of acceptability) were selected for inclusion in the pilot intervention. When consumer or clinician feedback was provided, the texts meeting the criteria for inclusion in the pilot were further revised and improved. Feedback on the video script was also used to further improve the acceptability of the video script before pilot-testing the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the process by which a 28-day mHealth intervention to support patients with chronic pain to taper opioid medications was evaluated and improved before pilot-testing. The mHealth intervention consisted of a 10-minute psychoeducational video about pain and opioid tapering and 56 unique SMS text messages providing information and reassurance (texts delivered twice per day for 28 days). Having established that the content of the mHealth intervention is acceptable to both consumer and clinician groups, the mHealth intervention will be piloted in future research.

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Stress and Wellbeing Factors Contributing to Burnout and Job Satisfaction in a Specialist Small Animal Hospital.

Occupational burnout is a critical issue affecting the welfare of veterinary care providers, their patients, and the sustainability of veterinary healthcare organizations. The current research aimed to evaluate the prevalence of and factors contributing to stress, wellbeing, burnout symptoms and job satisfaction among clinical and non-clinical staff at a large specialist small animal hospital in Australia. Participants completed an anonymous online survey including self-report measures of job satisfaction and symptoms of burnout, and open-text response questions probing sources of stress and wellbeing. Subsequently, participants rated how frequently they experienced commonly reported sources of veterinary stress, and a series of focus groups were conducted with clinical and non-clinical teams. The survey was completed by 249 participants (overall response rate = 70%; 67.1% "clinical;" 17.3% "non-clinical;" 5.6% "other"). Five focus groups (including 38 of the survey participants) were subsequently conducted with groups of clinical and non-clinical staff. The majority of respondents (80.7%) reported being satisfied, very satisfied, or extremely satisfied with their job. At the same time, 57.7% of respondents exceeded the threshold for burnout on at least one burnout dimension, with 48.1% reporting high levels of emotional exhaustion, 30.2% reported high levels of cynicism, and 16.3% reporting low levels of professional efficacy. Open text responses and focus group transcripts revealed three common sources of stress and wellbeing. Stressors included communication (conflict within teams), clients (dealing with client emotions and expectations), and heavy caseload. Wellbeing was enhanced by people (team cohesion, respect for colleagues), practice (variety, autonomy, challenge), and purpose (meaningful work and impact). Overall, for both clinical and non-clinical survey respondents, "heavy workload" was rated as the most frequent source of stress. Despite high levels of job satisfaction, approximately two thirds of respondents reported at least one symptom of burnout. Convergent results from the survey and focus groups indicated that strong relationships with colleagues and the intrinsic meaningfulness of the work were key sources of wellbeing and job satisfaction. On the other hand, challenging workplace interactions with colleagues and clients, as well as heavy workload, were identified as key stressors contributing to burnout symptoms.

Efficacy of interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To review interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment in people with chronic non-cancer pain, considering efficacy on dose reduction and discontinuation, pain, function, quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, substance use, and adverse events. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library searched from inception to July 2021. Reference lists and previous reviews were also searched and experts were contacted. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Original research in English. Case reports and cross sectional studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomised and non-randomised studies (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I). Authors grouped interventions into five categories (pain self-management, complementary and alternative medicine, pharmacological and biomedical devices and interventions, opioid replacement treatment, and deprescription methods), estimated pooled effects using random effects meta-analytical models, and appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation). RESULTS: Of 166 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 130 (78%) were considered at critical risk of bias and were excluded from the evidence synthesis. Of the 36 included studies, few had comparable treatment arms and sample sizes were generally small. Consequently, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for more than 90% (41/44) of GRADE outcomes, including for all non-opioid patient outcomes. Despite these limitations, evidence of moderate certainty indicated that interventions to support prescribers' adherence to guidelines increased the likelihood of patients discontinuing opioid treatment (adjusted odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 2.1), and that these prescriber interventions as well as pain self-management programmes reduced opioid dose more than controls (intervention v control, mean difference -6.8 mg (standard error 1.6) daily oral morphine equivalent, P<0.001; pain programme v control, -14.31 mg daily oral morphine equivalent, 95% confidence interval -21.57 to -7.05). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the reduction of long term opioid treatment for chronic pain continues to be constrained by poor study methodology. Of particular concern is the lack of evidence relating to possible harms. Agreed standards for designing and reporting studies on the reduction of opioid treatment are urgently needed. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020140943.

Evaluating acceptability and feasibility of a mobile health intervention to improve self-efficacy in prescription opioid tapering in patients with chronic pain: protocol for a pilot randomised, single-blind, controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid medications are no longer recommended as long-term therapy for chronic non-cancer pain, and many patients are advised to reduce or discontinue opioid medications. Many patients report difficulties in tapering opioid medications, necessitating supporting interventions. This protocol describes a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the acceptability, feasibility and potential efficacy of a mobile health intervention to improve the opioid tapering self-efficacy of patients with chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial will be a single-blind (clinician, data collector and statistician-blinded) pilot RCT with two parallel arms. Forty adult patients with chronic non-cancer pain who are voluntarily reducing their prescribed opioid medications under medical guidance will be recruited from two tertiary pain clinics (Start date 25 August 2021). Participants will be randomly assigned to an intervention or control group. Both groups will receive usual care, including multidisciplinary pain management. In addition to usual care, the intervention group will receive a short informational and testimonial video about opioid tapering and will receive two specifically text messages per day for 28 days. The intervention is codesigned with patients and clinicians to provide evidence-based informational, motivational and emotional support to patients with chronic pain to taper opioid medications. Feasibility of the intervention and a future definitive RCT will be evaluated by measuring patient acceptability, delivery of the intervention, rates and reasons of exclusions and drop-outs, completion rates and missing data in the study questionnaires, and obtaining estimates for sample size determination. Potential efficacy will be evaluated by comparing changes in opioid tapering self-efficacy between the two groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Northern Sydney Local Health District (Australia). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific and professional meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000795897.

Psychological interventions for chronic, non-specific low back pain: systematic review with network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from database inception to 31 January 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with any comparison intervention in adults with chronic, non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and confidence in the evidence. Primary outcomes were physical function and pain intensity. A random effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach was performed at post-intervention (from the end of treatment to <2 months post-intervention); and at short term (≥2 to <6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥6 to <12 months post-intervention), and long term follow-up (≥12 months post-intervention). Physiotherapy care was the reference comparison intervention. The design-by-treatment interaction model was used to assess global inconsistency and the Bucher method was used to assess local inconsistency. RESULTS: 97 randomised controlled trials involving 13 136 participants and 17 treatment nodes were included. Inconsistency was detected at short term and mid-term follow-up for physical function, and short term follow-up for pain intensity, and were resolved through sensitivity analyses. For physical function, cognitive behavioural therapy (standardised mean difference 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.44), and pain education (0.62, 0.08 to 1.17), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important improvements at post-intervention (moderate quality evidence). The most sustainable effects of treatment for improving physical function were reported with pain education delivered with physiotherapy care, at least until mid-term follow-up (0.63, 0.25 to 1.00; low quality evidence). No studies investigated the long term effectiveness of pain education delivered with physiotherapy care. For pain intensity, behavioural therapy (1.08, 0.22 to 1.94), cognitive behavioural therapy (0.92, 0.43 to 1.42), and pain education (0.91, 0.37 to 1.45), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important effects at post-intervention (low to moderate quality evidence). Only behavioural therapy delivered with physiotherapy care maintained clinically important effects on reducing pain intensity until mid-term follow-up (1.01, 0.41 to 1.60; high quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: For people with chronic, non-specific low back pain, psychological interventions are most effective when delivered in conjunction with physiotherapy care (mainly structured exercise). Pain education programmes (low to moderate quality evidence) and behavioural therapy (low to high quality evidence) result in the most sustainable effects of treatment; however, uncertainty remains as to their long term effectiveness. Although inconsistency was detected, potential sources were identified and resolved. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019138074.

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.