Literacy-Adapted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Versus Education for Chronic Pain at Low-Income Clinics: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Chronic pain is common and challenging to treat. Although cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is efficacious, its benefit in disadvantaged populations is largely unknown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of literacy-adapted and simplified group CBT versus group pain education (EDU) versus usual care. Design: Randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01967342). Setting: Community health centers serving low-income patients in Alabama. Patients: Adults (aged 19 to 71 years) with mixed chronic pain. Interventions: CBT and EDU delivered in 10 weekly 90-minute group sessions. Measurements: Self-reported, postintervention pain intensity (primary outcome) and physical function and depression (secondary outcomes). Results: 290 participants were enrolled (70.7% of whom were women, 66.9% minority group members, 72.4% at or below the poverty level, and 35.8% reading below the fifth grade level); 241 (83.1%) participated in posttreatment assessments. Linear mixed models included all randomly assigned participants. Members of the CBT and EDU groups had larger decreases in pain intensity scores between baseline and posttreatment than participants receiving usual care (estimated differences in change scores-CBT: -0.80 [95% CI -1.48 to -0.11]; P = 0.022; EDU: -0.57 [CI, -1.04 to -0.10]; P = 0.018). At 6-month follow-up, treatment gains were not maintained in the CBT group but were still present in the EDU group. With regard to physical function, participants in the CBT and EDU interventions had greater posttreatment improvement than those receiving usual care, and this progress was maintained at 6-month follow-up. Changes in depression (secondary outcome) did not differ between either the CBT or EDU group and the usual care group. Limitations: Participants represented a single health care system. Self-selection bias may have been present. Conclusion: Simplified group CBT and EDU interventions delivered at low-income clinics significantly improved pain and physical function compared with usual care. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The relationship of sociodemographic and psychological variables with chronic pain variables in a low-income population.

Chronic pain is a pervasive condition that is complicated by economic, educational, and racial disparities. This study analyzes key factors associated with chronic pain within an understudied and underserved population. The sample is characterized by a triple disparity with respect to income, education/literacy, and racial barriers that substantially increase the vulnerability to the negative consequences of chronic pain. The study examined the pretreatment data of 290 participants enrolled in the Learning About My Pain trial, a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial of psychosocial interventions (B.E.T., Principal Investigator, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Contract No. 941; clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01967342) for chronic pain. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses evaluated the relationships among sociodemographic (sex, age, race, poverty status, literacy, and education level) and psychological (depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing) variables and pain interference, pain severity, and disability. The indirect effects of depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing on the sociodemographic and pain variables were investigated using bootstrap resampling. Reversed mediation models were also examined. Results suggested that the experience of chronic pain within this low-income sample is better accounted for by psychological factors than sex, age, race, poverty status, literacy, and education level. Depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing mediated the relationships between age and pain variables, whereas pain catastrophizing mediated the effects of primary literacy and poverty status. Some reversed models were equivalent to the hypothesized models, suggesting the possibility of bidirectionality. Although cross-sectional findings cannot establish causality, our results highlight the critical role psychological factors play in individuals with chronic pain and multiple health disparities.

An Examination of Cultural Values and Pain Management in Foreign-Born Spanish-Speaking Hispanics Seeking Care at a Federally Qualified Health Center.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies done with Hispanics illustrate their preference for self-management practices; therefore, examining the factors driving patients to seek medical care for pain management will help elucidate what patients want and need from their doctors for pain management. The aim of the present study was to obtain patients' perspectives and enhance our understanding of the cultural beliefs influencing pain management decisions of foreign-born Spanish-speaking Hispanics with low acculturation. METHODS: Twenty-four individuals (17 females and 7 males) with self-reported chronic pain completed the study. Participants attended a focus group and shared about pain management practices and their experiences with medical care for pain management. Descriptive data on pain and mood variables were collected to examine how this population compares with the norms reported in the pain literature for Hispanics. RESULTS: Participants reported a preference for pain self-management and noninvasive medical treatments and expressed negative attitudes toward pain medications, although wanting the option of pain medications as a "last resort." Satisfaction with medical care for pain was highly influenced by the participants' expectations and preference for personal, warm, and friendly interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous reports on Hispanics' preference for self-care practices. Perhaps foreign-born Hispanics may rely on self-care practices and delay medical attention for pain management because of their unfamiliarity with the US health care system. Other potential explanations for a reliance on self-care for pain management involve patients having a limited understanding of or access to effective treatment options for chronic pain and negative experiences with US medical providers.

Effect of a perspective-taking intervention on the consideration of pain assessment and treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is often poorly managed, highlighting the need to better understand and treat patients' pain. Research suggests that pain is assessed and treated differently depending on patient sex, race, and/or age. Perspective-taking, whereby one envisions the perspective of another, has been found to reduce racial disparities in pain management. This study used virtual human (VH) technology to examine whether a perspective-taking intervention impacts pain management decisions. METHODS: Ninety-six participants were randomized to an online treatment or control group and viewed 16 video clips of VHs with standardized levels of pain. Participants provided ratings on the VHs' pain intensity and their willingness to administer opioids to them. The intervention group received a brief perspective-taking intervention that consisted of having participants imagine how the patient's suffering could affect his/her life, whereas the control group was asked to wait for the next VH videos to load. A LENS model analysis was used to investigate both group level (nomothetic) and individual level (idiographic) decision policies. A LENS model of analysis is typically used as an analog method for capturing how groups of people and individuals use information in their environment to form judgments. RESULTS: Nomothetic results found that participants rated pain higher and were more likely to prescribe opioids to VHs postintervention, irrespective of group. Idiographic results, however, found that the use of cues to make pain management decisions was mitigated by the perspective-taking group. The participants in the perspective-taking group were more likely to think about pain and the patients' perspective during the intervention, while control participants were more likely to reflect on the VHs' sex, race, or age. CONCLUSION: A brief intervention may alter participants' pain management decisions. These results indicate that a brief intervention might be an initial step toward aligning observers' pain management ratings with those of the patient. Future research is needed to replicate findings in a health care population.

Using virtual human technology to provide immediate feedback about participants' use of demographic cues and knowledge of their cue use.

UNLABELLED: Demographic characteristics have been found to influence pain management decisions, but limited focus has been placed on participants' reactions to feedback about their use of sex, race, or age to make these decisions. The present study aimed to examine the effects of providing feedback about the use of demographic cues to participants making pain management decisions. Participants (N = 107) viewed 32 virtual human patients with standardized levels of pain and provided ratings for virtual humans' pain intensity and their treatment decisions. Real-time lens model idiographic analyses determined participants' decision policies based on cues used. Participants were subsequently informed about cue use and completed feedback questions. Frequency analyses were conducted on responses to these questions. Between 7.4 and 89.4% of participants indicated awareness of their use of demographic or pain expression cues. Of those individuals, 26.9 to 55.5% believed this awareness would change their future clinical decisions, and 66.6 to 75.9% endorsed that their attitudes affect their imagined clinical practice. Between 66.6 and 79.1% of participants who used cues reported willingness to complete an online tutorial about pain across demographic groups. This study was novel because it provided participants feedback about their cue use. Most participants who used cues indicated willingness to participate in an online intervention, suggesting this technology's utility for modifying biases. PERSPECTIVE: This is the first study to make individuals aware of whether a virtual human's sex, race, or age influences their decision making. Findings suggest that a majority of the individuals who were made aware of their use of demographic cues would be willing to participate in an online intervention.

The impact of patients' gender, race, and age on health care professionals' pain management decisions: an online survey using virtual human technology.

BACKGROUND: Previous literature indicates that biases exist in pain ratings. Healthcare professionals have been found to use patient demographic cues such as sex, race, and age when making decisions about pain treatment. However, there has been little research comparing healthcare professionals' (i.e., physicians and nurses) pain decision policies based on patient demographic cues. METHODS: The current study used virtual human technology to examine the impact of patients' sex, race, and age on healthcare professionals' pain ratings. One hundred and ninety-three healthcare professionals (nurses and physicians) participated in this online study. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals assessed virtual human patients who were male and African American to be experiencing greater pain intensity and were more willing to administer opioid analgesics to them than to their demographic counterparts. Similarly, nurses were more willing to administer opioids make treatment decisions than physicians. There was also a significant virtual human-sex by healthcare professional interaction for pain assessment and treatment decisions. The sex difference (male>female) was greater for nurses than physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Results replicated findings of previous studies using virtual human patients to assess the effect of sex, race, and age in pain decision-making. In addition, healthcare professionals' pain ratings differed depending on healthcare profession. Nurses were more likely to rate pain higher and be more willing to administer opioid analgesics than were physicians. Healthcare professionals rated male and African American virtual human patients as having higher pain in most pain assessment and treatment domains compared to their demographic counterparts. Similarly the virtual human-sex difference ratings were more pronounced for nurses than physicians. Given the large number of patients seen throughout the healthcare professionals' careers, these pain practice biases have important public health implications. This study suggests attention to the influence of patient demographic cues in pain management education is needed.

The influence of sex, race, and age on pain assessment and treatment decisions using virtual human technology: a cross-national comparison.

PURPOSE: Studies in the United States have found that patients' sex, race, and age influence the pain assessment and treatment decisions of laypeople and medical professionals. However, there is limited research as to whether people of other nationalities make pain management decisions differently based on demographic characteristics. Therefore, the purpose of the following study was to compare pain assessment and treatment decisions of undergraduate students in Jordan and the United States as a preliminary examination of nationality as a potential proxy for cultural differences in pain decisions. METHODS: Virtual human (VH) technology was used to examine the influences of patients' sex (male or female), race (light-skinned or dark-skinned), and age (younger or older) on students' pain management decisions. Seventy-five American and 104 Jordanian undergraduate students participated in this web-based study. RESULTS: American and Jordanian students rated pain intensity higher in females and older adults and were more likely to recommend medical help to these groups, relative to males and younger adults. Furthermore, Jordanian participants rated pain intensity higher and were more likely to recommend medical help for all patient demographic groups (ie, sex, race, age) than American participants. CONCLUSION: This is the first cross-national study that compares pain decisions between undergraduate students. The results suggest that sex, race, and age cues are used in pain assessment and treatment by both Americans and Jordanians, with Jordanians more likely to rate pain higher and recommend medical help to patients. Additional research is needed to determine the cultural determinants of these differences.

Pain assessment and treatment decisions for virtual human patients.

Laypeople and healthcare professionals use demographic cues when making pain management decisions. These decisions can negatively affect patient outcomes. This study examined whether laypeople base their pain management decisions in part on pain-related postures and demographic cues. Virtual human (VH) technology was used to research whether sex and race, as well as body posture, influenced pain management decisions. Ninety-seven laypersons examined VH patients exhibiting low back pain related body postures whose demographic cues varied by VH sex and VH race. T tests validated that participants were able to distinguish between high pain related body postures and low pain related body postures. The participants assessed male VH patients to be experiencing more pain than female VH patients. This study suggests that participants use sex as a cue when assessing pain. Participants may perceive VH male patients as experiencing high pain intensity if the participants are willing to counter male stereotypes and acknowledge that the male VH patients display pain behaviors.

The perception of pain in others: how gender, race, and age influence pain expectations.

UNLABELLED: Sex, race/ethnic, and age differences in pain have been reported in clinical and experimental research. Gender role expectations have partly explained the variability in sex differences in pain, and the Gender Role Expectations of Pain questionnaire (GREP) was developed to measure sex-related stereotypic attributions about pain. It is hypothesized that similar expectations exist for age- and race-related pain decisions. This study investigated new measures of race/ethnic- and age-related stereotypic attributions of pain sensitivity and willingness to report pain, and examined the psychometric properties of a modified GREP. Participants completed the Race/Ethnicity Expectations of Pain questionnaire, Age Expectations of Pain questionnaire, and modified GREP. Results revealed a 3-factor solution to the race/ethnicity questionnaire and a 2-factor solution to the age questionnaire, consistent with theoretical construction of the items. Results revealed a 4-factor solution to the modified GREP that differed from the original GREP and theoretical construction of the items. Participants' pain-related stereotypic attributions differed across racial/ethnic, age, and gender groups. These findings provide psychometric support for the measures examined herein and suggest that stereotypic attributions of pain in others differ across demographic categories. Future work can refine the measures and examine whether select demographic variables influence pain perception, assessment, and/or treatment. PERSPECTIVE: The findings suggest that one's expectations of the pain experience of another person are influenced by the stereotypes one has about different genders, races, and ages. The 3 pain expectation measures investigated in the current study could be used in future work examining biases in pain assessment and treatment.