Factors associated with clinician intention to address diverse aspects of pain in seriously ill outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common, often undertreated problem among patients with palliative needs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinician factors associated with intention to address diverse aspects of pain. DESIGN: Clinicians reviewed a clinical vignette describing a frail elderly patient with advanced hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer, depression, and pain not on analgesic therapy. Clinicians were surveyed about their intentions for treatment. PARTICIPANTS: All 280 primary care and specialist clinicians working in 19 hospital and community-based primary care, oncology, and cardiology clinics at eight geographically dispersed sites in two large VA hospital systems. MAIN MEASURES: Endpoints were clinician intention to deliver guideline-concordant care: prescribe opioids/antidepressants, assess existential wellbeing, and offer mental health referral. Demographic and behavioral measures were evaluated in association with endpoints. KEY RESULTS: Of 208 (74%) responding practitioners, 189 were responsible for prescribing decisions. Of those, 86, 77, 75, and 69 were "very"/"somewhat likely" to prescribe opioids, antidepressants, refer to a mental health specialist, or assess existential wellbeing, respectively. Factors associated with greater intent to prescribe an opioid or antidepressant included female gender, being an attending physician, being a primary care clinician, and greater confidence in pain management skills. Greater trust in the validity of pain ratings was associated with intent to prescribe an antidepressant and assess existential wellbeing. Prescribing opioids was less likely if perceived as an administrative burden. Assessing existential wellbeing was less likely if time constraints were perceived a barrier to evaluating pain. Female gender was the only factor associated with intent to refer to a mental health specialist. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest useful targets for improving pain management include bolstering clinician confidence in pain management and their trust in pain ratings.

Exploring alternative approaches to routine outpatient pain screening.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential alternatives to the numeric rating scale (NRS) for routine pain screening. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Nineteen Veterans Affairs outpatient clinics in Southern California at two hospitals and six community sites. PATIENTS: Five hundred twenty-eight veterans from primary care, cardiology, and oncology clinics sampled in proportion to the total number of visits made to each clinic during the previous year. METHODS: Veterans were approached following clinic visits to complete researcher-administered surveys about their clinic experience. Using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference scale of > or =5 as a reference standard for important unrelieved pain, we evaluated potential alternative pain screening items and item combinations by analyzing sensitivity and specificity, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: Of the veterans, 43.6% had unrelieved pain as measured by the reference standard. Approximately half had painful musculoskeletal diagnoses and one-third had comorbid mental health or substance use disorders. The fifth vital sign detected pain less accurately than did an NRS with a 1-week timeframe and an item assessing pain-related bother over the past week. AUCs were 0.79, 0.86, and 0.86, respectively. A sequential approach combining the pain-related bother and NRS with a 1-week timeframe items had good discriminatory ability. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative single or combined pain screening strategies assessing pain-related bother may improve routine pain detection.

Heart failure: the hidden problem of pain.

Although dyspnea and fatigue are hallmark symptoms of heart failure (HF), the burden of pain may be underrecognized. This study assessed pain in HF and identified contributing factors. As part of a multicenter study, 96 veterans with HF (96% male, 67+/-11 years) completed measures of symptoms, pain (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), functional status (Functional Morbidity Index), and psychological state (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2). Single items from the BPI interference and the quality of life-end of life measured social and spiritual well-being. Demographic and clinical variables were obtained by chart audit. Correlation and linear regression models evaluated physical, emotional, social, and spiritual factors associated with pain. Fifty-three (55.2%) HF patients reported pain, with a majority (36 [37.5%]) rating their pain as moderate to severe (pain>or=4/10). The presence of pain was reported more frequently than dyspnea (67 [71.3%] vs. 58 [61.7%]). Age (P=0.02), psychological (depression: P=0.002; anxiety: P=0.001), social (P<0.001), spiritual (P=0.010), and physical (health status: P=0.001; symptom frequency: P=0.000; functional status: P=0.002) well-being were correlated with pain severity. In the resulting model, 38% of the variance in pain severity was explained (P<0.001); interference with relations (P<0.001) and symptom number (P=0.007) contributed to pain severity. The association of physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains with pain suggests that multidisciplinary interventions are needed to address the complex nature of pain in HF.

A comparative study of pain in heart failure and non-heart failure veterans.

BACKGROUND: Progress has been made in addressing pain in specific diseases such as cancer, but less attention has focused on understanding pain in nonmalignant states, including heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: From March 2006 to June 2007, 672 veterans were surveyed and scores for the Brief Pain Inventory, pain distress, clinically significant pain levels (moderate to severe pain), and pain locations were compared using univariate and multivariate models. Fifteen percent of the final sample had HF (95/634). In our study, the HF patients were older (P < .000), reported lower levels of general health (P = .018), had more co-morbidities (P < .000), were more likely to have a history of cancer (P = .035), and suffered more chest pain and fewer headaches (P = .026, P = .03, respectively) than their non-HF cohorts. When controlling for age, co-morbidity and cancer disorders, HF and non-HF patients did not differ in pain severity, interference, distress or locations. Of the patients currently experiencing pain, 67.3% of HF patients and 68.4% of non-HF patients rated their pain as moderate or severe (pain >or=4 on a 0 to 10 scale). CONCLUSIONS: Although HF has not been identified as a painful condition, this study suggests the burden of pain is significant for both HF and non-HF ambulatory care patients.

Validation of a brief measure of anxiety-related severity and impairment: the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS).

BACKGROUND: The Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) is a 5-item self-report measure that can be used to assess severity and impairment associated with any anxiety disorder or multiple anxiety disorders. A prior investigation with a nonclinical sample supported the reliability and validity of the OASIS; however, to date it has not been validated for use in clinical samples. METHODS: The present study assessed the psychometric properties of the OASIS in a large sample (N=1036) of primary care patients whose physicians referred them to an anxiety disorders treatment study. Latent structure, internal consistency, convergent/discriminant validity, and cut-score analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a unidimensional structure. The five OASIS items displayed strong loadings on the single factor and had a high degree of internal consistency. OASIS scores demonstrated robust correlations with global and disorder-specific measures of anxiety, and weak correlations with measures of unrelated constructs. A cut-score of 8 correctly classified 87% of this sample as having an anxiety diagnosis or not. LIMITATIONS: Convergent validity measures consisted solely of other self-report measures of anxiety. Future studies should evaluate the convergence of OASIS scores with clinician-rated and behavioral measures of anxiety severity. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this investigation suggests that the OASIS is a valid instrument for measurement of anxiety severity and impairment in clinical samples. Its brevity and applicability to a wide range of anxiety disorders enhance its utility as a screening and assessment tool.

Relationships among pain, anxiety, and depression in primary care.

Pain, anxiety, and depression are commonly seen in primary care patients and there is considerable evidence that these experiences are related. This study examined associations between symptoms of pain and symptoms and diagnoses of anxiety and depression in primary care patients. Results indicate that primary care patients who endorse symptoms of muscle pain, headache, or stomach pain are approximately 2.5-10 times more likely to screen positively for panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or major depressive disorder. Endorsement of pain symptoms was also significantly associated with confirmed diagnoses of several of the anxiety disorders and/or major depression, with odds ratios ranging from approximately 3 to 9 for the diagnoses. Patients with an anxiety or depressive disorder also reported greater interference from pain. Similarly, patients endorsing pain symptoms reported lower mental health functioning and higher scores on severity measures of depression, social anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Mediation analyses indicated that depression mediated some, but not all of the relationships between anxiety and pain. Overall, these results reveal an association between reports of pain symptoms and not only depression, but also anxiety. An awareness of these relationships may be particularly important in primary care settings where a patient who presents with reports of pain may have an undiagnosed anxiety or depressive disorder.

Does occasional cannabis use impact anxiety and depression treatment outcomes?: Results from a randomized effectiveness trial.

This study investigated the extent to which occasional cannabis use moderated anxiety and depression outcomes in the Collaborative Care for Anxiety and Panic (CCAP) study, a combined cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and pharmacotherapy randomized effectiveness trial. Participants were 232 adults from six university-based primary care outpatient clinics in three West Coast cities randomized to receive either the CCAP intervention or the usual care condition. Results showed significant (P<.01) evidence of an interaction between treatment group (CCAP vs. usual care) and cannabis use status (monthly vs. less than monthly) for depressive symptoms, but not for panic disorder or social phobia symptoms (all P>.05). Monthly cannabis users' depressive symptoms improved in the CCAP intervention just as much as those who used cannabis less than monthly, whereas monthly users receiving usual care had significantly more depressive symptoms than those using less than monthly. A combined CBT and medication treatment intervention may be a promising approach for the treatment of depression among occasional cannabis users.

Associations between psychological trauma and physical illness in primary care.

Psychological trauma is associated with poor physical health. We examined whether specific trauma types (assaultive, sexual, any) are associated with specific medical illnesses and whether posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) mediated these relationships in 680 primary care patients. For men, trauma history was associated with arthritis and diabetes; PTSD mediated the association between trauma and arthritis but not diabetes. Among women, trauma was associated with digestive diseases and cancer; PTSD did not mediate these relationships. Awareness of the presence of the physical illnesses examined here may help with the identification and treatment of primary care patients with trauma histories.

Five-year impact of quality improvement for depression: results of a group-level randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) programs for depressed primary care patients can improve health outcomes for 6 to 28 months; effects for longer than 28 months are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess how QI for depression affects health outcomes, quality of care, and health outcome disparities at 57-month follow-up. DESIGN: A group-level randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-six primary care practices in 6 managed care organizations. PATIENTS: Of 1356 primary care patients who screened positive for depression and enrolled in the trial, 991 (73%, including 451 Latinos and African Americans) completed 57-month telephone follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Clinics were randomly assigned to usual care or to 1 of 2 QI programs supporting QI teams, provider training, nurse assessment, and patient education, plus resources to support medication management (QI-meds) or psychotherapy (QI-therapy) for 6 to 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Probable depressive disorder in the previous 6 months, mental health-related quality of life in the previous 30 days, primary care or mental health specialty visits, counseling or antidepressant medications in the previous 6 months, and unmet need, defined as depressed but not receiving appropriate care. RESULTS: Combined QI-meds and QI-therapy, relative to usual care, reduced the percentage of participants with probable disorder at 5 years by 6.6 percentage points (P =.04). QI-therapy improved health outcomes and reduced unmet need for appropriate care among Latinos and African Americans combined but provided few long-term benefits among whites, reducing outcome disparities related to usual care (P =.04 for QI-ethnicity interaction for probable depressive disorder). CONCLUSIONS: Programs for QI for depressed primary care patients implemented by managed care practices can improve health outcomes 5 years after implementation and reduce health outcome disparities by markedly improving health outcomes and unmet need for appropriate care among Latinos and African Americans relative to whites; thus, equity was improved in the long run.