Treatment Goals and Preferences of Black Veterans with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

Understanding patient goals and preferences is critical in the context of complex conditions such as chronic pain. This need may be especially pronounced for Black patients, who experience significant health and healthcare disparities. The primary aim of this study was to describe the treatment goals and preferences of Black veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain who were enrolled in the intervention arm of a randomized controlled trial testing a coaching intervention. In the coaching sessions, participants (n = 106) identified their most important pain-related treatment goals and preferences. Participants' top treatment goals were to improve physical functioning (61%), increase engagement in valued activities (45%), and reduce pain intensity (37%). Most participants (73%) preferred non-pharmacological treatments (eg, physical therapy, exercise, acupuncture, yoga). The 17% of participants who identified medications as a preferred treatment demonstrated higher levels of depression and anxiety compared to those who did not. Approximately 42% and 21% of participants stated a preference to avoid pharmacological and surgical pain treatments, respectively. Black patients with chronic pain prioritize improving physical functioning and pain intensity in service of increasing their engagement in exercise, work, relationships, and leisure activities. Also, in the current study, patients expressed a clear preference for non-pharmacological pain treatments. Future research should investigate ways to improve communication of goals and preferences with providers and facilitate access to non-pharmacological treatments for Black patients with chronic pain. PERSPECTIVE: This article describes the treatment goals and preferences of Black veterans with chronic pain. Most patients prioritized goals to improve physical functioning, pain severity, and participation in valued activities. Patients primarily preferred non-pharmacological treatments. This emphasizes the need for clear communication with Black patients regarding pain-related goals and non-pharmacological treatment options.

Communication and Activation in Pain to Enhance Relationships and Treat Pain with Equity (COOPERATE): a Qualitative Analysis of a Tailored Coaching Program for Black Patients with Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Racial inequities in pain treatment are well-documented and persist despite national priorities focused on health equity. The COOPERATE (Communication and Activation in Pain to Enhance Relationships and Treat Pain with Equity) intervention was a patient-centered, tailored intervention aimed at improving health equity by targeting patient activation-the knowledge and confidence to manage one's health. COOPERATE led to significant and sustained increases in patient activation, significant short-term increases in communication self-efficacy (confidence to communicate with clinicians), and more intervention participants experienced clinically significant (≥ 30%) reductions in pain at 3 months than control group participants. OBJECTIVE: To understand how participants experienced the intervention, including their perspectives on its effects on their health and healthcare experiences. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Black veterans with chronic pain who participated in the COOPERATE intervention. KEY RESULTS: Participants described acquiring new tools and cultivating skills to use in their clinic visits, including preparing for their visit (writing an agenda, listing questions); asking focused, effective questions; and expressing concerns and communicating goals, values, and preferences. Participants indicated that by putting these tools to use, they felt more confident and able to take ownership of their own pain care; for some, this led to better pain management and improved pain. Participants expressed mixed views of disparities in pain care, with some believing race and racism did not play a role in their care, while others valued being part of an intervention that helped equip them with tools to exercise autonomy over their healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients with chronic pain described gaining greater confidence to self-manage and communicate with their clinicians after participating in the COOPERATE intervention. With its focus on empowering individuals, the COOPERATE intervention represents a promising approach to help advance equity in pain care.

Communication and activation in pain to enhance relationships and treat pain with equity (COOPERATE): a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Racialized disparities in chronic pain care are well-documented and persist despite national priorities focused on health equity. Similar disparities have been observed in patient activation (ie, having the knowledge, confidence, and skills to manage one's health). As such, interventions targeting patient activation represent a novel approach to addressing and reducing disparities in pain care. Communication and Activation in Pain to Enhance Relationships and Treat Pain with Equity is a randomized controlled trial of a 6-session telephone-delivered intervention to increase patient activation for Black patients with chronic pain. Two hundred fifty Black patients from a Midwestern Veterans Affairs medical center were randomized to the intervention or attention control. The primary outcome was patient activation; secondary outcomes included communication self-efficacy, pain, and psychological functioning. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3 (primary endpoint), 6, and 9 months (sustained effects). Analyses used an intent-to-treat approach. Compared with baseline, patient activation increased 4.6 points at 3 months (versus +0.13 in control group, 95% CI: 0.48, 7.34; P = 0.03). These improvements in the intervention group were sustained, with +7 from baseline at 6 months and +5.77 at 9 months, and remained statistically significant from the control group. Communication self-efficacy increased significantly relative to the control group from baseline to 3 months. Pain intensity and interference improved at 3 months, but differences were not significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Most other secondary outcomes improved, but group differences were not statistically significant after controlling for multiple comparisons. Results suggest that increasing patient activation is a potentially fruitful path toward improving pain management and achieving health equity.

Findings from a Peer-Facilitated, Social Isolation Intervention in the Veterans Health Administration Healthcare System: A Mixed-Methods, Pilot Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Social isolation is a global public health threat. Veterans are particularly at risk for social isolation due to high rates of comorbid physical and mental health problems. Yet, effective interventions are limited. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of CONNECTED, a novel, transdiagnostic intervention to reduce social isolation that includes individual and group components and is delivered by peers via telehealth. Secondary objectives were to identify appropriate outcome measures and explore preliminary intervention effects. METHODS: This was a two-phase study. In Phase 1, to evaluate study feasibility, we surveyed 200 veterans to assess prevalence of social isolation and their interest in social connectedness interventions. In Phase 2, we employed a mixed-methods, pre-post study design in which we piloted CONNECTED with 19 veterans through 2 successive cohorts to further assess feasibility, to evaluate acceptability, and to explore preliminary effectiveness. Quantitative analyses involved descriptive and bivariate analyses as well as multivariate modeling. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: For Phase 1, 39% of veterans surveyed were socially isolated. Participants who were ≤ 55 years old, caregivers, and those who experienced unmet social needs were more likely to report social isolation. Over 61% expressed interest in VA programs to reduce social isolation. For Phase 2, the pilot intervention, recruitment rate was 88% and the enrollment rate was 86%. Retention rates for the two cohorts were 80% and 50%, respectively, and satisfaction rates among intervention completers were 100%. Results also showed statistically significant improvements in social isolation (+ 5.91, SD = 4.99; p = .0028), social support (+ 0.74, SD = 1.09; p = .03), anxiety (-3.92, SD = 3.73; p = .003), and depression (-3.83, SD = 3.13; p = .001). Results for the other measures were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CONNECTED is a feasible and acceptable intervention and is likely to be an effective tool to intervene on social isolation among veterans.

Veterans' views of PARTNER-MH, a peer-led patient navigation intervention, to improve patient engagement in care and patient-clinician communication: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we report on participants' experiences of PARTNER-MH, a peer-led, patient-navigation intervention for racially and ethnically minoritized patients in Veterans Health Administration mental health services aimed at improving patient engagement in care and patient-clinician communication. Participants described their views of PARTNER-MH, barriers and facilitators to the intervention's implementation, and their application of varied intervention concepts to improve engagement in care and communication with their mental health clinicians. METHODS: This is a qualitative analysis of the PARTNER-MH pilot randomized controlled trial. Participants participated in semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Rapid data analysis approach was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Participants (n = 13) perceived PARTNER-MH as an acceptable intervention, and viewed use of peers as interventionists, long-term outreach and engagement efforts, and navigation services favorably. Barriers to implementation included limited flexibility in peers' schedules and lack of peer/participant gender concordance, as well as limited options for program delivery modality. Three main themes summarized participants' views and perceived benefits of PARTNER-MH that contributed to improved patient-clinician communication: 1) increased patient engagement, 2) improved patient-clinician relationship, and 3) enhanced communication self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Participants viewed PARTNER-MH as beneficial and identified several intervention components that contributed to improved engagement in care, communication self-efficacy, and patient-clinician communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: Some patients, especially minoritized patients and those who have been disenfranchised from healthcare systems may benefit from peer-led interventions that facilitate engagement in care and communication self-efficacy to improve patient-clinician communication and healthcare outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04515771.

Proactive, Recovery-Oriented Treatment Navigation to Engage Racially Diverse Veterans in Mental Healthcare (PARTNER-MH), a Peer-Led Patient Navigation Intervention for Racially and Ethnically Minoritized Veterans in Veterans Health Administration Mental Health Services: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Mental health care disparities are persistent and have increased in recent years. Compared with their White counterparts, members of racially and ethnically minoritized groups have less access to mental health care. Minoritized groups also have lower engagement in mental health treatment and are more likely to experience ineffective patient-provider communication, which contribute to negative mental health care experiences and poor mental health outcomes. Interventions that embrace recovery-oriented practices to support patient engagement and empower patients to participate in their mental health care and treatment decisions may help reduce mental health care disparities. Designed to achieve this goal, the Proactive, Recovery-Oriented Treatment Navigation to Engage Racially Diverse Veterans in Mental Healthcare (PARTNER-MH) is a peer-led patient navigation intervention that aims to engage minoritized patients in mental health treatment, support them to play a greater role in their care, and facilitate their participation in shared treatment decision-making. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of PARTNER-MH delivered to patients over 6 months. The second aim is to evaluate the preliminary effects of PARTNER-MH on patient activation, patient engagement, and shared decision-making. The third aim is to examine patient-perceived barriers to and facilitators of engagement in PARTNER-MH as well as contextual factors that may inhibit or promote the integration, sustainability, and scalability of PARTNER-MH using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. METHODS: This pilot study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of PARTNER-MH in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental health setting using a mixed methods, randomized controlled trial study design. PARTNER-MH is tested under real-world conditions using certified VHA peer specialists (peers) selected through usual VHA hiring practices and assigned to the mental health service line. Peers provide PARTNER-MH and usual peer support services. The study compares the impact of PARTNER-MH versus a wait-list control group on patient activation, patient engagement, and shared decision-making as well as other patient-level outcomes. PARTNER-MH also examines organizational factors that could impact its future implementation in VHA settings. RESULTS: Participants (N=50) were Veterans who were mostly male (n=31, 62%) and self-identified as non-Hispanic (n=44, 88%) and Black (n=35, 70%) with a median age of 45 to 54 years. Most had at least some college education, and 32% (16/50) had completed ≥4 years of college. Randomization produced comparable groups in terms of characteristics and outcome measures at baseline, except for sex. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than simply documenting health disparities among vulnerable populations, PARTNER-MH offers opportunities to evaluate a tailored, culturally sensitive, system-based intervention to improve patient engagement and patient-provider communication in mental health care for racially and ethnically minoritized individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04515771; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04515771. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37712.

Communication and Activation in Pain to Enhance Relationships and Treat Pain with Equity (COOPERATE): Rationale, study design, methods, and sample characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is associated with profound negative effects, and racial disparities are well-documented in chronic pain treatment. In addition, Black patients report poorer communication with providers and exhibit lower levels of patient activation (self-management self-efficacy) than White patients. Although the causes of healthcare disparities are complex and require intervention at multiple levels, empowering patients is one critical path to achieving health equity. The current study is a coaching intervention focused on increasing patient activation and building communication skills for Black patients with chronic pain. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 250 Black patients with chronic pain were randomized to either the coaching intervention or an attention control arm. Intervention patients attended 6 telephone-delivered individual coaching sessions over 12 weeks. Coaching focused on clarifying and prioritizing goals and on communication skills, such as agenda setting. The primary outcome is patient activation. Secondary outcomes include communication self-efficacy, pain intensity and interference, and psychological functioning. DISCUSSION: Having the knowledge and confidence to participate in one's pain care, coupled with the skills needed to effectively communicate with providers, is essential to optimize chronic pain care. This is particularly important for Black patients who often experience lower quality pain care. Interventions such as COOPERATE hold promise for helping patients to acquire the requisite tools to take greater control of their chronic pain care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, # NCT03562793.

Pre-implementation Evaluation of PARTNER-MH: A Mental Healthcare Disparity Intervention for Minority Veterans in the VHA.

To design PARTNER-MH, a peer-led, patient navigation program for implementation in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental health care settings, we conducted a pre-implementation evaluation during intervention development to assess stakeholders' views of the intervention and to explore implementation factors critical to its future adoption. This is a convergent mixed-methods study that involved qualitative semi-structured interviews and survey data. Data collection was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We interviewed and administered the surveys to 23 peers and 10 supervisors from 12 midwestern VHA facilities. We used deductive and inductive approaches to analyze the qualitative data. We also conducted descriptive analysis and Fisher Exact Test to compare peers and supervisors' survey responses. We triangulated findings to refine the intervention. Overall, participants viewed PARTNER-MH favorably. However, they saw the intervention's focus on minority Veterans and social determinants of health framework as potential barriers, believing this could negatively affect the packaging of the intervention, complicate its delivery process, and impact its adoption. They also viewed clinic structures, available resources, and learning climate as potential barriers. Peers and supervisors' selections and discussions of CFIR items were similar. Our findings informed PARTNER-MH development and helped identify factors that could impact its implementation. This project is responsive to the increasing recognition of the need to incorporate implementation science in healthcare disparities research. Understanding the resistance to the intervention's focus on minority Veterans and the potential barriers presented by contextual factors positions us to adjust the intervention prior to testing, in an effort to maximize implementation success.

Veterans' perceptions of racial bias in VA mental healthcare and their impacts on patient engagement and patient-provider communication.

OBJECTIVES: Drawing from social identity threat theory, which posits that stigmatized groups are attuned to situational cues that signal racial bias, we examined how African-American veterans evaluate verbal and non-verbal cues in their mental health encounters. We also explored how their evaluations of perceived racial bias might influence their healthcare engagement behaviors and communication. METHODS: We interviewed 85 African-American veterans who were receiving mental health services from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), examining their views and experiences of race in healthcare. We analyzed the data using a constructivist grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Participants identified several identity threatening cues that include lack of racial diversity representation in healthcare settings, and perceptions of providers' fears of Black patients. We describe how participants evaluated situational cues as identity threats, and how these cues affected their engagement behaviors and healthcare communication. CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed situational cues within clinical encounters that create for Black veterans, fear of being negatively judged based on stereotypes that have characterized African-Americans. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We discuss the implications of these findings and provide suggestions on how to create identity safe environments for minority patients that include delivery of person-centered care, and organizational structures that reduce providers' burnout.

Too Many Don'ts and Not Enough Do's? A Survey of Hospitals About Their Portal Instructions for Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals present the opportunity to expand patients' access to their clinicians and health information. Yet patients and clinicians have expressed the need for more guidance on portal and secure messaging procedures to avoid misuse. Little information is currently available concerning whether and how expectations of portal and messaging usage are communicated to patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify the information made available to patients about patient portal use, and to assess ease in accessing such information. DESIGN: A national survey of publicly available portal information from hospital websites. The study team followed up with phone calls to each hospital to request any additional patient-directed materials (e.g., pamphlets) not located in the web search. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 200 acute-care hospitals, 50 from each of four US Census regions, selected from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Hospital Compare dataset. MAIN MEASURES: Availability of patient portals, secure messaging, and related functionality; the content and ease of access to patient-directed information about portals. KEY RESULTS: Of the hospitals sampled, 177 (89%) had a patient portal; 116 (66%) of these included secure messaging functionality. Most portals with secure messaging (N = 65, 58%) did not describe appropriate patient messaging conduct. Although many included disclaimers that the service is not for emergencies, 23 hospitals only included this within the fine prints of their "Terms and Conditions" section. Content analysis of additional patient-directed materials revealed a focus on logistical content, features of the portals, and parameters of use. Of the three categories, logistical content (e.g., creating an account) was the most thorough. CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the sampled hospitals had patient portals, many fail to educate patients fully and set expectations for secure messaging. To improve patient engagement and minimize harm, hospitals and clinicians need to provide more information and set clearer guidelines for patients.

Impact of race and sex on pain management by medical trainees: a mixed methods pilot study of decision making and awareness of influence.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research suggests female and black patients receive less optimal treatment for their chronic pain compared with male and white patients. Provider-related factors are hypothesized to contribute to unequal treatment, but these factors have not been examined extensively. This mixed methods investigation examined the influence of patients' demographic characteristics on providers' treatment decisions and providers' awareness of these influences on their treatment decisions. METHODS: Twenty medical trainees made treatment decisions (opioid, antidepressant, physical therapy) for 16 virtual patients with chronic low back pain; patient sex and race were manipulated across patients. Participants then indicated from a provided list the factors that influenced their treatment decisions, including patient demographics. Finally, individual interviews were conducted to discuss the role of patient demographics on providers' clinical decisions. RESULTS: Individual regression analyses indicated that 30% of participants were reliably influenced by patient sex and 15% by patient race when making their decisions (P < 0.05 or P < 0.10). Group analyses indicated that white patients received higher antidepressant recommendations, on average, than black patients (P < 0.05). Half of the medical trainees demonstrated awareness of the influence of demographic characteristics on their decision making. Participants, regardless of whether they were influenced by patients' demographics, discussed themes related to patient sex and race; however, participants' discussion of patient demographics in the interviews did not always align with their online study results. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest there is a considerable variability in the extent to which medical trainees are influenced by patient demographics and their awareness of these decision making influences.

Core domains of shared decision-making during psychiatric visits: scientific and preference-based discussions.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is imperative to person-centered care, yet little is known about what aspects of SDM are targeted during psychiatric visits. This secondary data analysis (191 psychiatric visits with 11 providers, coded with a validated SDM coding system) revealed two factors (scientific and preference-based discussions) underlying SDM communication. Preference-based discussion occurred less. Both provider and consumer initiation of SDM elements and decision complexity were associated with greater discussions in both factors, but were more strongly associated with scientific discussion. Longer visit length correlated with only scientific discussion. Providers' understanding of core domains could facilitate engaging consumers in SDM.

Consumer and relationship factors associated with shared decision making in mental health consultations.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored the association between shared decision making and consumers' illness management skills and consumer-provider relationships. METHODS: Medication management appointments for 79 consumers were audio recorded. Independent coders rated overall shared decision making, minimum level of shared decision making, and consumer-provider agreement for 63 clients whose visit included a treatment decision. Mental health diagnoses, medication adherence, patient activation, illness management, working alliance, and length of consumer-provider relationships were also assessed. Correlation analyses were used to determine relationships among measures. RESULTS: Overall shared decision making was not associated with any variables. Minimum levels of shared decision making were associated with higher scores on the bond subscale of the Working Alliance Inventory, indicating a higher degree of liking and trust, and with better medication adherence. Agreement was associated with shorter consumer-provider relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer-provider relationships and shared decision making might have a more nuanced association than originally thought.

Using simulation to assess the influence of race and insurer on shared decision making in periviable counseling.

INTRODUCTION: Sociodemographic differences have been observed in the treatment of extremely premature (periviable) neonates, but the source of this variation is not well understood. We assessed the feasibility of using simulation to test the effect of maternal race and insurance status on shared decision making (SDM) in periviable counseling. METHODS: We conducted a 2 × 2 factorial simulation experiment in which obstetricians and neonatologists counseled 2 consecutive standardized patients diagnosed with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, counterbalancing race (black/white) and insurance status using random permutation. We assessed verisimilitude of the simulation in semistructured debriefing interviews. We coded physician communication related to resuscitation, mode of delivery, and steroid decisions using a 9-point SDM coding framework and then compared communication scores by standardized patient race and insurer using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Sixteen obstetricians and 15 neonatologists participated; 71% were women, 84% were married, and 75% were parents; 91% of the physicians rated the simulation as highly realistic. Overall, SDM scores were relatively high, with means ranging from 6.4 to 7.9 (of 9). There was a statistically significant interaction between race and insurer for SDM related to steroid use and mode of delivery (P < 0.01 and P = 0.01, respectively). Between-group comparison revealed nonsignificant differences (P = <0.10) between the SDM scores for privately insured black patients versus privately insured white patients, Medicaid-insured white patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients, and privately insured black patients versus Medicaid-insured black patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that simulation is a feasible method for studying sociodemographic effects on periviable counseling. Shared decision making may occur differentially based on patients' sociodemographic characteristics and deserves further study.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Sleep Apnea in patients' homes: the rationale and methods of the "GoToSleep" randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The "Diagnosis and Treatment of Sleep Apnea in Cerebrovascular Disease" (GoToSleep) study is evaluating a strategy to improve the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea among veterans with stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) who also have hypertension. Specifically, the GoToSleep study was designed to overcome some of the barriers that exist within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to the timely diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea by using ambulatory home-based polysomnography and auto-titrating continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to reduce the reliance on laboratory-based sleep studies. METHODS: The GoToSleep study is a prospective, multi-site, randomized, controlled strategy trial among an expected 318 veterans with cerebrovascular disease and hypertension who are assigned to an intervention group or a control group. Patients in the intervention group receive unattended polysomnography at baseline, and those with sleep apnea receive auto-titrating CPAP therapy for up to one year. Patients in the control group receive usual care and unattended polysomnography at the end of the study to identify the rate of undiagnosed sleep apnea. The primary objectives of the GoToSleep study are to determine whether a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention strategy among veterans with cerebrovascular disease and hypertension improves: (1) detection of sleep apnea; (2) appropriate treatment for sleep apnea; and (3) control of hypertension. Twenty-four-hour blood pressure assessments are made at baseline and at the end of the one-year study period for both groups. Antihypertensive medications and their doses are recorded at the time of the 24-hour blood pressure measurements. DISCUSSION: This manuscript provides the rationale for 4 key components of the design of the GoToSleep trial: the inclusion of patients with cerebrovascular disease and hypertension without the use of a measure of daytime sleepiness as an eligibility criterion; the use of portable polysomnography and auto-titrating CPAP in patients' homes rather than using sleep laboratory polysomnography with fixed pressure CPAP; the analytic approach to evaluating change in blood pressure in the context of change in antihypertensive medications; and the use of a usual care control group.