A protocol for a discrete choice experiment: understanding patient medicine preferences for managing chronic non-cancer pain.

INTRODUCTION: High rates of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), concerns about adverse effects including dependence among those prescribed potent pain medicines, the recent evidence supporting active rather than passive management strategies and a lack of funding for holistic programme have resulted in challenges around decision making for treatment among clinicians and their patients. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are one way of assessing and valuing treatment preferences. Here, we outline a protocol for a study that assesses patient preferences for CNCP treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A final list of attributes (and their levels) for the DCE was generated using a detailed iterative process. This included a literature review, a focus group and individual interviews with those with CNCP and clinicians who treat people with CNCP. From this process a list of attributes was obtained. Following a review by study investigators including pain and addiction specialists, pharmacists and epidemiologists, the final list of attributes was selected (number of medications, risk of addiction, side effects, pain interference, activity goals, source of information on pain, provider of pain care and out-of-pocket costs). Specialised software was used to construct an experimental design for the survey. The survey will be administered to two groups of participants, those from a longitudinal cohort of patients receiving opioids for CNCP and a convenience sample of patients recruited through Australia's leading pain advocacy body (Painaustralia) and their social media and website. The data from the two participant groups will be initially analysed separately, as their demographic and clinical characteristics may differ substantially (in terms of age, duration of pain and current treatment modality). Mixed logit and latent class analysis will be used to explore heterogeneity of responses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the University of New South Wales Sydney Human Ethics committee HC16511 (for the focus group discussions, the one-on-one interviews and online survey) and HC16916 (for the cohort). A lay summary will be made available on the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre website and Painaustralia's website. Peer review papers will be submitted, and it is expected the results will be presented at relevant pain management conferences nationally and internationally. These results will also be used to improve understanding of treatment goals between clinicians and those with CNCP.

Effect of cannabis use in people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids: findings from a 4-year prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the use of cannabis and cannabinoids to treat chronic non-cancer pain is increasing, because of their potential to reduce opioid dose requirements. We aimed to investigate cannabis use in people living with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, including their reasons for use and perceived effectiveness of cannabis; associations between amount of cannabis use and pain, mental health, and opioid use; the effect of cannabis use on pain severity and interference over time; and potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabis. METHODS: The Pain and Opioids IN Treatment study is a prospective, national, observational cohort of people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids. Participants were recruited through community pharmacies across Australia, completed baseline interviews, and were followed up with phone interviews or self-complete questionnaires yearly for 4 years. Recruitment took place from August 13, 2012, to April 8, 2014. Participants were asked about lifetime and past year chronic pain conditions, duration of chronic non-cancer pain, pain self-efficacy, whether pain was neuropathic, lifetime and past 12-month cannabis use, number of days cannabis was used in the past month, and current depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We also estimated daily oral morphine equivalent doses of opioids. We used logistic regression to investigate cross-sectional associations with frequency of cannabis use, and lagged mixed-effects models to examine temporal associations between cannabis use and outcomes. FINDINGS: 1514 participants completed the baseline interview and were included in the study from Aug 20, 2012, to April 14, 2014. Cannabis use was common, and by 4-year follow-up, 295 (24%) participants had used cannabis for pain. Interest in using cannabis for pain increased from 364 (33%) participants (at baseline) to 723 (60%) participants (at 4 years). At 4-year follow-up, compared with people with no cannabis use, we found that participants who used cannabis had a greater pain severity score (risk ratio 1·14, 95% CI 1·01-1·29, for less frequent cannabis use; and 1·17, 1·03-1·32, for daily or near-daily cannabis use), greater pain interference score (1·21, 1·09-1·35; and 1·14, 1·03-1·26), lower pain self-efficacy scores (0·97, 0·96-1·00; and 0·98, 0·96-1·00), and greater generalised anxiety disorder severity scores (1·07, 1·03-1·12; and 1·10, 1·06-1·15). We found no evidence of a temporal relationship between cannabis use and pain severity or pain interference, and no evidence that cannabis use reduced prescribed opioid use or increased rates of opioid discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Cannabis use was common in people with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, but we found no evidence that cannabis use improved patient outcomes. People who used cannabis had greater pain and lower self-efficacy in managing pain, and there was no evidence that cannabis use reduced pain severity or interference or exerted an opioid-sparing effect. As cannabis use for medicinal purposes increases globally, it is important that large well designed clinical trials, which include people with complex comorbidities, are conducted to determine the efficacy of cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Government.

Health service utilisation by people living with chronic non-cancer pain: findings from the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study.

Objective The aims of the present study were to describe the use, and barriers to the use, of non-medication pain therapies and to identify the demographic and clinical correlates of different non-opioid pain treatments. Methods The study was performed on a cohort (n=1514) of people prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Participants reported lifetime and past month use of healthcare services, mental and physical health, pain characteristics, current oral morphine equivalent daily doses and financial and access barriers to healthcare services. Results Participants reported the use of non-opioid pain treatments, both before and after commencing opioid therapy. Services accessed most in the past month were complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs; 41%), physiotherapy (16%) and medical and/or pain specialists (15%). Higher opioid dose was associated with increased financial and access barriers to non-opioid treatment. Multivariate analyses indicated being younger, female and having private health insurance were the factors most commonly associated with accessing non-opioid treatments. Conclusions Patients on long-term opioid therapy report using multiple types of pain treatments. High rates of CAM use are concerning given limited evidence of efficacy for some therapies and the low-income status of most people with CNCP. Financial and insurance barriers highlight the importance of considering how different types of treatments are paid for and subsidised. What is known about the topic? Given concerns regarding long-term efficacy, adverse side-effects and risk of misuse and dependence, prescribing guidelines recommend caution in prescribing pharmaceutical opioids in cases of CNCP, typically advising a multidisciplinary approach to treatment. There is a range of evidence supporting different (non-drug) treatment approaches for CNCP to reduce pain severity and increase functioning. However, little is known about the non-opioid treatments used among those with CNCP and the demographic and clinical characteristics that may be associated with the use of different types of treatments. Understanding the use of non-drug therapy among people with CNCP is crucial given the potential to improve pain control for these patients. What does this paper add? The present study found that a wide range of non-opioid treatments was accessed by the study sample, both before and after commencing opioids, indicating that in this sample opioids were not the sole strategy used for pain management. The most common treatment (other than opioids) was CAM, reported by two-fifths of the sample. Having private health insurance was associated with increased use of non-opioid treatments for pain, highlighting the importance of considering how treatments are paid for and potential financial barriers to effective treatments. What are the implications for practitioners? Patients' beliefs and financial barriers may affect the uptake of different treatments. Many patients may be using complementary and alternative approaches with limited evidence to support their use, highlighting the need for clinicians to discuss with patients the range of prescribed and non-prescribed treatments they are accessing and to help them understand the benefits and risks of treatments that have not been tested sufficiently, or have inconsistent evidence, as to their efficacy in improving pain outcomes.

Experience of adjunctive cannabis use for chronic non-cancer pain: findings from the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing debate about cannabis use for medical purposes, including for symptomatic treatment of chronic pain. We investigated patterns and correlates of cannabis use in a large community sample of people who had been prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: The POINT study included 1514 people in Australia who had been prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Data on cannabis use, ICD-10 cannabis use disorder and cannabis use for pain were collected. We explored associations between demographic, pain and other patient characteristics and cannabis use for pain. RESULTS: One in six (16%) had used cannabis for pain relief, 6% in the previous month. A quarter reported that they would use it for pain relief if they had access. Those using cannabis for pain on average were younger, reported greater pain severity, greater interference from and poorer coping with pain, and more days out of role in the past year. They had been prescribed opioids for longer, were on higher opioid doses, and were more likely to be non-adherent with their opioid use. Those using cannabis for pain had higher pain interference after controlling for reported pain severity. Almost half (43%) of the sample had ever used cannabis for recreational purposes, and 12% of the entire cohort met criteria for an ICD-10 cannabis use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use for pain relief purposes appears common among people living with chronic non-cancer pain, and users report greater pain relief in combination with opioids than when opioids are used alone.

Conservative treatment for shoulder pain: prognostic indicators of outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the long-term clinical outcome and to identify factors that predict that outcome, after conservative treatment of patients who have shoulder pain with or without accompanying stiffness. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two subjects who had participated in a randomized controlled trial that compared the short-term effectiveness of conservative treatment for chronic, unilateral shoulder pain of mechanical origin with and without accompanying stiffness, and who were available for longer term follow-up 6 months after the cessation of formal treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Conservative treatment consisting of various combinations of exercise therapy, passive joint mobilization, electrophysical modalities, and corticosteroid injections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity, functional limitation, perceived change in symptoms, active range of motion, muscle force, and clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS: Patients showed significant improvement in all outcome measurements in the long-term whether or not their shoulder pain was accompanied by stiffness. Long-term outcome was not predicted by hand dominance, clinical history of the shoulder condition, severity of the shoulder problem, or shoulder mechanics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic shoulder pain, with or without accompanying stiffness, can expect significant decreases in shoulder pain and improvements in shoulder function in the long term after conservative treatment.

Medical beliefs and practices of the Maroons of Moore Town: a study in acculturation

A major focua of this research was a descriptive account of the traditional medicine of the Maroons of Moore Town, Jamaica, West Indies. The data were collected on a field trip from June - September, 1972. Maroon theory suggests that illness can be attributed to both natural and supernatural factors. Natural causes of illness were oriented especially around cold intrusion, with germs, improper diet, and inadequate exercise also mentioned as possibilities. In supernatural context, duppies (spirits of the dead), the devil, and Gog were described as responsible for a category of "deep" illnesses, although it was noted that the cause of any illness could be attributed ultimately to supernatural forces. The reliance upon herbs in the treatment of illness was a dominating feature of Maroon traditional medicine. Most Moore Towners, at least, had a basic familiarity with the Maroon bush. At the onset of an illness, attempts by the individual, or his family, at self-treatment ensued. If these did not prove adequate, one could turn next to the medical specialists, the herbalist, or dancer. Another major focus of the researcher concerned the effect of modern medicine on the illness-related beliefs and behavior of the Maroon. The thrust here was an assessment of areas of conservatism and change in the Maroon medical sphere today. Modern medical facilities available to the Maroons, and the situations in which these were utilized, were examined toward this end. It was suggested that limited utilization of modern resources is a characteristic of the Maroon picture today. Despite a partial acceptance of modern medicine, the Maroons continue to place great emphasis on their traditional patterns. The belief in the supremacy of Maroon herbal treatment still is held widely today. Not only are herbs frequently seen as more effective than their scientific counterparts, they are also available and free. In terms of etiology, both cold intrusion and spirit forces are described today as major causes of illness. Herskovits' views on acculturation, and sociological perspectives on changein Maroon medicine. Folk pragmatism and the role of the innovator also were considered. Finally, the importance of investigating the impact of traditional forms on modern medicine, as well as the converse, was suggested (AU)