Telephone veteran peer coaching for mental health treatment engagement among rural veterans: The importance of secondary outcomes and qualitative data in a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of telephone motivational coaching delivered by veteran peers to improve mental health (MH) treatment engagement among veterans. METHODS: Veterans receiving primary care from primarily rural VA community-based outpatient clinics were enrolled. Veterans not engaged in MH treatment screening positive for ≥1 MH problem(s) were randomized to receive veteran peer-delivered feedback on MH screen results and referrals plus 4 sessions of telephone motivational coaching (intervention) versus veteran peer-delivered MH results and referrals without motivational coaching (control). Blinded telephone assessments were conducted at baseline, 8, 16, and 32 weeks. Cox proportional hazard models compared MH clinician-directed treatment initiation between groups; descriptive analyses compared MH treatment retention, changes in MH symptoms, quality of life, and self-care. FINDINGS: Among 272 veterans screening positive for ≥1 MH problem(s), 45% who received veteran peer telephone motivational coaching versus 46% of control participants initiated MH treatment (primary outcome) (hazard ratio: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.76-1.57), representing no between-group differences. In contrast, veterans receiving veteran peer motivational coaching achieved significantly greater improvements in depression, posttraumatic stress disorder and cannabis use scores, quality of life domains, and adoption of some self-care strategies than controls (secondary outcomes). Qualitative data revealed that veterans who received veteran peer motivational coaching may no longer have perceived a need for MH treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among veterans with MH problems using predominantly rural VA community clinics, telephone peer motivational coaching did not enhance MH treatment engagement, but instead had positive effects on MH symptoms, quality of life indicators, and use of self-care strategies.

How VA Whole Health Coaching Can Impact Veterans' Health and Quality of Life: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Program Evaluation.

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of a pilot VA Whole Health Coaching program, including whether and how the program helps veterans improve their health and quality of life. INTERVENTION: Whole Health Coaching is a structured program to support veterans in making healthy behavior changes to promote holistic well-being. DESIGN: This mixed-methods quality-improvement evaluation combined surveys (pre- and post-coaching) with follow-up qualitative interviews. SETTING: The setting was a large VA healthcare system, encompassing a medical center and six community-based clinics in Northern California. PARTICIPANTS: 65 veterans completed surveys at both time points; 42 completed qualitative interviews. METHOD: Telephone surveys administered at baseline and 3 months assessed global health (PROMIS-10), perceived stress (PSS-4), and perceived health competency (PHCS-2). Pre- and post-scores were compared using t-tests. A subsample of participants completed a qualitative interview evaluating program experience, goal attainment, and the coaching relationship. RESULTS: Surveys showed significant improvements over baseline in mental health (p = 0.006; d = 0.36), stress (p = 0.003; d = -0.38), and perceived health competence (p = 0.01; d = 0.35). Interviewees were highly satisfied with their coaching experience, describing both effective program components and improvement opportunities. CONCLUSION: Whole Health Coaching can help participants make meaningful progress toward health goals, reduce stress, and improve quality of life. The Whole Health model's emphasis on holistic self-assessment; patient-driven goal-setting; supportive, non-judgmental inquiry; and mindful awareness contributed to program success and enhanced participants' experience.

Stakeholder Engagement in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Emphasizing Relationships to Improve Pain Management Delivery and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

Tailored to Fit: How an Implementation Framework Can Support Pragmatic Pain Care Trial Adaptation for Diverse Veterans Affairs Clinical Settings.

BACKGROUND: Veterans Affairs (VA) has rolled out a holistic, multicomponent Whole Health care model nationwide, yet no pragmatic trials have been conducted in real-world clinical settings to compare its effectiveness against other evidence-based approaches for chronic pain management in veterans. OBJECTIVES: We describe the adaptation of the first large pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the Whole Health model for chronic pain care for diverse VA clinical settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: Informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Systems implementation framework, we conducted qualitative semistructured interviews to obtain feedback on trial design from VA leadership, frontline clinicians, and veterans with chronic pain at 5 VA enrollment sites. Next, we convened in-person evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) meetings with study stakeholders (including frontline clinicians and administrators) at each site to discuss study design; review interview themes; and identify site-specific barriers, facilitators, and approaches to implementation. Ethnographic observations from EBQI meetings provided additional insight into implementation strategies. SUBJECTS: Seventy-four veteran and VA staff stakeholders were interviewed; 71 stakeholders participated in EBQI meetings. RESULTS: At each site, unique clinical contexts and varying resources for Whole Health and pain care delivery affected plans for trial implementation. We present examples of local adaptations that emerged through the formative evaluation process to facilitate implementation and yield a more pragmatic trial design. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic formative evaluation can facilitate engagement and buy-in of study stakeholders. Locally tailored pragmatic implementation strategies may improve the likelihood of successful trial execution as well as future implementation of evidence-based pain care approaches in real-world clinical settings.

The risks of opioid treatment: Perspectives of primary care practitioners and patients from safety-net clinics.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of substance use are more likely than those without substance use to experience chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), to be prescribed opioids, and to experience opioid misuse or overdose. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) in safety-net settings care for low-income patients with CNCP and substance use, usually without specialist consultation. To inform communication related to opioid risk, we explored PCPs' and patients' perceptions of the risks of chronic opioid therapy. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 23 PCPs and 46 of their patients, who had a history of CNCP and substance use. We recruited from 6 safety-net health care settings in the San Francisco Bay Area. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analyzed transcripts using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: (1) PCPs feared harming patients and the community by opioid prescribing. PCPs emphasized fear of opioid overdose. (2) Patients did not highlight concerns about the adverse health consequences of opioids, except for addiction. (3) Both patients and PCPs were concerned about PCPs' medicolegal risks related to opioid prescribing. (4) Patients reported feeling stigmatized by policies aimed at reducing opioid misuse. CONCLUSION: We identified differences in how clinicians and patients perceive opioid risk. To improve the informed consent process for opioid therapy, patients and PCPs need to have a shared understanding of the risks of opioids and engage in discussions that promote patient autonomy and safety. As clinics implement opioid prescribing policies, clinicians must develop effective communication strategies in order to educate patients about opioid risks and decrease patients' experiences of stigma and discrimination.