Provider perceptions of challenges to identifying women Veterans with hazardous substance use.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of women Veterans Health Administration (VHA) users have substance use disorders (SUD). Early identification of hazardous substance use in this population is critical for the prevention and treatment of SUD. We aimed to understand challenges to identifying women Veterans with hazardous substance use to improve future referral, evaluation, and treatment efforts. METHODS: Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with VHA interdisciplinary women's SUD providers at VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. PARTICIPANTS: Using purposive and snowball sampling we interviewed 17 VHA providers from psychology, social work, women's health, primary care, and psychiatry. APPROACH: Our analytic approach was content analysis of provider perceptions of identifying hazardous substance use in women Veterans. RESULTS: Providers noted limitations across an array of existing identification methodologies employed to identify women with hazardous substance use and believed these limitations were abated through trusting provider-patient communication. Providers emphasized the need to have a process in place to respond to hazardous use when identified. Provider level factors, including provider bias, and patient level factors such as how they self-identify, may impact identification of women Veterans with hazardous substance use. Tailoring language to be sensitive to patient identity may help with identification in women Veterans with hazardous substance use or SUD who are not getting care in VHA but are eligible as well as those who are not eligible for care in VHA. CONCLUSIONS: To overcome limitations of existing screening tools and processes of identifying and referring women Veterans with hazardous substance use to appropriate care, future efforts should focus on minimizing provider bias, building trust in patient-provider relationships, and accommodating patient identities.

Synthesizing the Strength of the Evidence of Complementary and Integrative Health Therapies for Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Pain and opioid use are highly prevalent, leading for calls to include nonpharmacological options in pain management, including complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies. More than 2,000 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and many systematic reviews have been conducted on CIH therapies, making it difficult to easily understand what type of CIH therapy might be effective for what type of pain. Here we synthesize the strength of the evidence for four types of CIH therapies on pain: acupuncture, therapeutic massage, mindfulness techniques, and tai chi. DESIGN: We conducted searches of English-language systematic reviews and RCTs in 11 electronic databases and previously published reviews for each type of CIH. To synthesize that large body of literature, we then created an "evidence map," or a visual display, of the literature size and broad estimates of effectiveness for pain. RESULTS: Many systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria: acupuncture (86), massage (38), mindfulness techniques (11), and tai chi (21). The evidence for acupuncture was strongest, and largest for headache and chronic pain. Mindfulness, massage, and tai chi have statistically significant positive effects on some types of pain. However, firm conclusions cannot be drawn for many types of pain due to methodological limitations or lack of RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient strength of evidence for acupuncture for various types of pain. Individual studies indicate that tai chi, mindfulness, and massage may be promising for multiple types of chronic pain. Additional sufficiently powered RCTs are warranted to indicate tai chi, mindfulness, and massage for other types of pain.

Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM. DESIGN: Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. SETTING: Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions. PARTICIPANTS: Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA. INTERVENTION: A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: (a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain. RESULTS: Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.