A Primary Care-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Intervention for Long-Term Opioid Users With Chronic Pain : A Randomized Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common, disabling, and costly. Few clinical trials have examined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions embedded in primary care settings to improve chronic pain among those receiving long-term opioid therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a group-based CBT intervention for chronic pain. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02113592). SETTING: Kaiser Permanente health care systems in Georgia, Hawaii, and the Northwest. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed chronic pain conditions receiving long-term opioid therapy. INTERVENTION: A CBT intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorist, nurse, physical therapist, and pharmacist) versus usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported pain impact (primary outcome, as measured by the PEGS scale [pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life, general activity, and sleep]) was assessed quarterly over 12 months. Pain-related disability, satisfaction with care, and opioid and benzodiazepine use based on electronic health care data were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients participated, representing 106 clusters of primary care providers (mean age, 60.3 years; 67.4% women); 816 (96.0%) completed follow-up assessments. Intervention patients sustained larger reductions on all self-reported outcomes from baseline to 12-month follow-up; the change in PEGS score was -0.434 point (95% CI, -0.690 to -0.178 point) for pain impact, and the change in pain-related disability was -0.060 point (CI, -0.084 to -0.035 point). At 6 months, intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with primary care (difference, 0.230 point [CI, 0.053 to 0.406 point]) and pain services (difference, 0.336 point [CI, 0.129 to 0.543 point]). Benzodiazepine use decreased more in the intervention group (absolute risk difference, -0.055 [CI, -0.099 to -0.011]), but opioid use did not differ significantly between groups. LIMITATION: The inclusion of only patients with insurance in large integrated health care systems limited generalizability, and the clinical effect of change in scores is unclear. CONCLUSION: Primary care-based CBT, using frontline clinicians, produced modest but sustained reductions in measures of pain and pain-related disability compared with usual care but did not reduce use of opioid medication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Providing Epidemiological Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports Did Not Affect Subsequent Utilization of Spine Procedures: Secondary Outcomes from a Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of inserting epidemiological information into lumbar spine imaging reports on subsequent nonsurgical and surgical procedures involving the thoracolumbosacral spine and sacroiliac joints. DESIGN: Analysis of secondary outcomes from the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) pragmatic stepped-wedge randomized trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics within four integrated health care systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: 238,886 patients ≥18 years of age who received lumbar diagnostic imaging between 2013 and 2016. METHODS: Clinics were randomized to receive text containing age- and modality-specific epidemiological benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common spine imaging findings in people without low back pain, inserted into lumbar spine imaging reports (the "LIRE intervention"). The study outcomes were receiving 1) any nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedure (lumbosacral epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, or facet joint radiofrequency ablation; or sacroiliac joint injection) or 2) any surgical procedure involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine (decompression surgery or spinal fusion or other spine surgery). RESULTS: The LIRE intervention was not significantly associated with subsequent utilization of nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedures (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.09; P = 0.79) or any surgical procedure (OR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.91-1.07; P = 0.74) involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine. The intervention was also not significantly associated with any individual spine procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiological text into spine imaging reports had no effect on nonsurgical or surgical procedure utilization among patients receiving lumbar diagnostic imaging.

Prospective Investigation of Factors Associated with Prescription Opioid Dose Escalation among Patients in Integrated Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has identified factors associated with prescription opioid initiation, but little is known about the prevalence or predictors of dose escalation among patients already prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). OBJECTIVE: This was a 2-year prospective cohort study to examine patient and clinician factors associated with opioid dose escalation. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. Participants were seen at baseline and every 6 months for a total of 2 years. PARTICIPANTS: Patients prescribed a stable dose of LTOT for musculoskeletal pain were recruited from two integrated health systems (Kaiser Permanente and the Department of Veterans Affairs, respectively). MAIN MEASURES: The prescription opioid dose was based on pharmacy records and self-report. Administrative data were gathered on characteristics of the opioid-prescribing clinician and healthcare utilization. Participants completed measures of pain, functioning, and quality of life. KEY RESULTS: Of enrolled participants (n = 517), 19.5% had an opioid dose increase. In multivariate analyses, patient variables associated with dose escalation were lower opioid dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.94, for every 10-mg increase in baseline dose) and greater pain catastrophizing (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01-1.05). Other variables associated with dose escalation were as follows: receiving medications from a nurse practitioner primary care provider (HR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.12-3.96) or specialty physician (HR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.22-8.34), relative to a physician primary care provider, and having undergone surgery within the past 6 months (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.10-2.94). Other variables, including pain intensity, pain disability, or depression, were not associated with dose escalation. CONCLUSIONS: In this 2-year prospective cohort study, variables associated with opioid dose escalation were lower opioid dose, higher pain catastrophizing, receiving opioids from a medical specialist (rather than primary care clinician) or nurse practitioner, and having recently undergone surgery. Study findings highlight intervention points that may be helpful for reducing the likelihood of future prescription opioid dose escalation.

Time to Align Coverage with Evidence for Treatment of Back Pain.

Despite improved knowledge about the benefits and harms of treatments for chronic back pain in the past several decades, there is a large and consequential mismatch between treatments found safe and effective and those routinely covered by health insurance. As a result, care for back pain has, if anything, deteriorated in recent decades-expenses are higher, harms are greater, and use of ineffective treatments is more common. Deficiencies in health care delivery processes and payment models are centrally involved in the failure to improve care for back pain. A key step for accelerating progress is changing insurance coverage policies to facilitate use of the safest and most helpful approaches while discouraging riskier and less effective treatments. Relatively simple changes in reimbursement policies may minimize harm and improve quality of life for many patients with chronic back and similar pain syndromes. Such changes might also reduce health care expenditures because the costs of treatments currently covered by insurance and their associated harms may well outweigh the costs of the relatively safe and effective treatments recommended by current guidelines but poorly covered by insurance. There is no justification for continuing the status quo-patients and clinicians deserve better.

Multi-site Pain Is Associated with Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Older Adults with Persistent Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of co-occurring pain sites among older adults with persistent back pain and associations of multisite pain with longitudinal outcomes. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cohort study. SETTING: Three integrated health systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: Eight hundred ninety-nine older adults with persistent back pain. METHODS: Participants reported pain in the following sites: stomach, arms/legs/joints, headaches, neck, pelvis/groin, and widespread pain. Over 18 months, we measured back-related disability (Roland Morris, scored 0-24), pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D], utility from 0-1), and falls in the past three weeks. We used mixed-effects models to test the association of number and type of pain sites with each outcome. RESULTS: Nearly all (N = 839, 93%) respondents reported at least one additional pain site. There were 216 (24%) with one additional site and 623 (69%) with multiple additional sites. The most prevalent comorbid pain site was the arms/legs/joints (N = 801, 89.1%). Adjusted mixed-effects models showed that for every additional pain site, RMDQ worsened by 0.65 points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.43 to 0.86), back pain intensity increased by 0.14 points (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.22), EQ-5D worsened by 0.012 points (95% CI = -0.018 to -0.006), and the odds of falling increased by 27% (odds ratio = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.43). Some specific pain sites (extremity pain, widespread pain, and pelvis/groin pain) were associated with greater long-term disability. CONCLUSIONS: Multisite pain is common among older adults with persistent back pain. Number of pain sites was associated with all outcomes; individual pain sites were less consistently associated with outcomes.

Correlates of Benzodiazepine Use and Adverse Outcomes Among Patients with Chronic Pain Prescribed Long-term Opioid Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the correlates and odds of receiving overlapping benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions and whether co-prescription was associated with greater odds of falling or visiting the emergency department. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large private integrated health system and a Veterans Health Administration integrated health system. SUBJECTS: Five hundred seventeen adults with musculoskeletal pain and current prescriptions for long-term opioid therapy. METHODS: A multivariate logistic regression model examined correlates of having overlapping benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions in the year before enrollment in the cross-sectional study. Negative binomial models analyzed the number of falls in the past three months and past-year emergency department visits. In addition to propensity score adjustment, models controlled for demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, medications, overall comorbidity score, and opioid morphine equivalent dose. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent (N = 127) of participants had co-occurring benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions in the prior year. Odds of receiving a benzodiazepine prescription were significantly higher among patients with the following psychiatric diagnoses: anxiety disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.67-8.32, P < 0.001), post-traumatic stress disorder (AOR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.14-4.38, P = 0.019), and bipolar disorder (AOR = 3.82, 95% CI = 1.49-9.81, P = 0.005). Past-year overlapping benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions were associated with adverse outcomes, including a greater number of falls (risk ratio [RR] = 3.27, 95% CI = 1.77-6.02, P = 0.001) and emergency department visits (RR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.08-2.53, P = 0.0194). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with chronic pain prescribed long-term opioid therapy, one-quarter of patients had co-occurring prescriptions for benzodiazepines, and dual use was associated with increased odds of falls and emergency department visits.

Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls. PARTICIPANTS: Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care. KEY RESULTS: Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.

Correlates of Use and Perceived Effectiveness of Non-pharmacologic Strategies for Chronic Pain Among Patients Prescribed Long-term Opioid Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Non-pharmacologic treatments (NPTs) are recommended for chronic pain. Information is limited on patient use or perceptions of NPTs. We examined the frequency and correlates of use and self-rated helpfulness of NPTs for chronic pain among patients who are prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). METHODS: Participants (n = 517) with musculoskeletal pain who were prescribed LTOT were recruited from two integrated health systems. They rated the frequency and utility of six clinician-directed and five self-directed NPTs for chronic pain. We categorized NPT use at four levels based on number of interventions used and frequency of use (none, low, moderate, high). Analyses examined clinical and demographic factors that differed among groups for both clinician-directed and self-directed NPTs. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of participants reported use of any NPT for pain within the prior 6 months. NPTs were rated as being helpful by more than 50% of users for all treatments assessed (range 51-79%). High users of clinician-directed NPTs were younger than non-users or low-frequency users and had the most depressive symptoms. In both clinician-directed and self-directed categories, high NPT users had significantly higher pain disability compared to non-NPT users. No significant group differences were detected on other demographic or clinical variables. In multivariable analyses, clinician-directed NPT use was modestly associated with younger age (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96-0.98) and higher pain disability (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00-1.02). Variables associated with greater self-directed NPT use were some college education (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.13-2.84), college graduate or more (OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.20-3.40), and higher pain disability (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: NPT use was associated with higher pain disability and younger age for both clinician-directed and self-directed NPTs and higher education for self-directed NPTs. These strategies were rated as helpful by those that used them. These results can inform intervention implementation and be used to increase engagement in NPTs for chronic pain.

Interdisciplinary team-based care for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment in primary care (PPACT) - Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is one of the most common, disabling, and expensive public health problems in the United States. Interdisciplinary pain management treatments that employ behavioral approaches have been successful in helping patients with chronic pain reduce symptoms and regain functioning. However, most patients lack access to such treatments. We are conducting a pragmatic clinical trial to test the hypothesis that patients who receive an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention, the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT), at their primary care clinic will have a greater reduction in pain impact in the year following than patients receiving usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid pragmatic clinical trial in which we randomize clusters of primary care providers and their patients with chronic pain who are on long-term opioid therapy to 1) receive an interdisciplinary behavioral intervention in conjunction with their current health care or 2) continue with current health care services. Our primary outcome is pain impact (a composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) measured using the PEG, a validated three-item assessment. Secondary outcomes include pain-related disability, patient satisfaction, opioids dispensed and health care utilization. An economic evaluation assesses the resources and costs necessary to deliver the intervention and its cost-effectiveness compared with usual care. A formative evaluation employs mixed methods to understand the context for implementation in the participating health care systems. DISCUSSION: This trial will inform the feasibility of implementing interdisciplinary behavioral approaches to pain management in the primary care setting, potentially providing a more effective, safer, and more satisfactory alternative to opioid-based chronic pain treatment. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592.

Opioid Prescribing Patterns and Patient Outcomes by Prescriber Type in the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.

Objective: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) were created to facilitate responsible use of controlled substances. In Oregon, physicians, physician's assistants (MDs/DOs/PAs), dentists, nurse practitioners (NPs), and naturopathic physicians (NDs) may prescribe opioids, but differences in prescribing practices, patient mix, and patient outcomes among prescriber types have not been characterized. Methods: De-identified Oregon PDMP data from October 2011 through October 2014 were linked with vital records and a statewide hospital discharge registry. The disciplines of registered prescribers were identified by board affiliations. Prescription profiles associated with opioid overdose risk were tabulated for patients with at least one registered prescriber. Opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. Results: There were 5,935 prescribers registered during the study period. Patients of NPs or NDs received more high-risk opioid prescriptions than patients of MDs/DOs/PAs. For example, they received greater proportions of high-dose prescriptions (NP 12.9%, ND 15%, MD/DO/PA 11.1%), and had greater opioid-related hospitalization (NP 1.7%, ND 3.1%, MD/DO/PA 1.2%; P < 0.005 for all). However, patients of NPs or NDs were also more likely to have four or more prescribers (NP 45.3%, ND 58.5%, MD/DO/PA 27.1%), and most of their patients' high-risk opioid prescriptions came from prescribers in other disciplines. Conclusion: Our analysis suggests significant differences in opioid prescription profiles and opioid-related hospitalization and mortality among patients receiving opioid prescriptions from nurse practitioners, naturopathic physicians, or medical clinicians in Oregon. However, these differences appear largely due to differences in patient mix between provider types rather than discipline-specific prescribing practices.

Patterns and correlates of medical cannabis use for pain among patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about co-occurring long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and medical cannabis use. We compared characteristics of patients prescribed LTOT who endorsed using medical cannabis for pain to patients who did not report cannabis use. METHOD: Participants (n=371) prescribed LTOT completed self-report measures about pain, substance use, and mental health. RESULTS: Eighteen percent of participants endorsed using medical cannabis for pain. No significant differences were detected on pain-related variables, depression, or anxiety between those who endorsed medical cannabis use and those who did not. Medical cannabis users had higher scores of risk for prescription opioid misuse (median=17.0 vs. 11.5, p<0.001), rates of hazardous alcohol use (25% vs. 16%, p<0.05), and rates of nicotine use (42% vs. 26%, p=0.01). Multivariable analyses indicated that medical cannabis use was significantly associated with risk of prescription opioid misuse (ß=0.17, p=0.001), but not hazardous alcohol use (aOR=1.96, 95% CI=0.96-4.00, p=0.06) or nicotine use (aOR=1.61, 95% CI=0.90-2.88, p=0.11). CONCLUSION: There are potential risks associated with co-occurring LTOT and medical cannabis for pain. Study findings highlight the need for further clinical evaluation in this population. Future research is needed to examine the longitudinal impact of medical cannabis use on pain-related and substance use outcomes.

Provider and patient perspectives on opioids and alternative treatments for managing chronic pain: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Current literature describes the limits and pitfalls of using opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic pain and the importance of identifying alternatives. The objective of this study was to identify the practical issues patients and providers face when accessing alternatives to opioids, and how multiple parties view these issues. METHODS: Qualitative data were gathered to evaluate the outcomes of acupuncture and chiropractic (A/C) services for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) using structured interview guides among patients with CMP (n = 90) and primary care providers (PCPs) (n = 25) purposively sampled from a managed care health care system as well as from contracted community A/C providers (n = 14). Focus groups and interviews were conducted patients with CMP with varying histories of A/C use. Plan PCPs and contracted A/C providers took part in individual interviews. All participants were asked about their experiences managing chronic pain and experience with and/or attitudes about A/C treatment. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematically coded. A summarized version of the focus group/interview guides is included in the Additional file 1. RESULTS: We identified four themes around opioid use: (1) attitudes toward use of opioids to manage chronic pain; (2) the limited alternative options for chronic pain management; (3) the potential of A/C care as a tool to help manage pain; and (4) the complex system around chronic pain management. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with opioid medications for pain management, many practical barriers challenged access to other options. Most of the participants' perceived A/C care as helpful for short term pain relief. We identified that problems with timing, expectations, and plan coverage limited A/C care potential for pain relief treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that education about realistic expectations for chronic pain management and therapy options, as well as making A/C care more easily accessible, might lead to more satisfaction for patients and providers, and provide important input to policy makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01345409 , date of registration 28/4/2011.

The feasibility of matching on a propensity score for acupuncture in a prospective cohort study of patients with chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Propensity scores are typically applied in retrospective cohort studies. We describe the feasibility of matching on a propensity score derived from a retrospective cohort and subsequently applied in a prospective cohort study of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain before the start of acupuncture or usual care treatment and enrollment in a comparative effectiveness study that required patient reported pain outcomes. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort study using data from 2010 to develop a propensity score for acupuncture versus usual care based on electronic healthcare record and administrative data (e.g., pharmacy) from an integrated health plan, Kaiser Permanente Northwest. The propensity score's probabilities allowed us to match acupuncture-referred and non-referred patients prospectively in 2013-14 after a routine outpatient visit for pain. Among the matched patients, we collected patient-reported pain before treatment and during follow-up to assess the comparative effectiveness of acupuncture. We assessed balance in patient characteristics with the post-matching c-statistic and standardized differences. RESULTS: Based on the propensity score and other characteristics (e.g., patient-reported pain), we were able to match all 173 acupuncture-referred patients to 350 non-referred (usual care) patients. We observed a residual imbalance (based on the standardized differences) for some characteristics that contributed to the score; for example, age, -0.283, and the Charlson comorbidity score, -0.264, had the largest standardized differences. The overall balance of the propensity score appeared more favorable according to the post-matching c-statistic, 0.503. CONCLUSION: The propensity score matching was feasible statistically and logistically and allowed approximate balance on patient characteristics, some of which will require adjustment in the comparative effectiveness regression model. By transporting propensity scores to new patients, healthcare systems with electronic health records can conduct comparative effectiveness cohort studies that require prospective data collection, such as patient-reported outcomes, while approximately balancing numerous patient characteristics that might confound the benefit of an intervention. The approach offers a new study design option.

Higher Prescription Opioid Dose is Associated With Worse Patient-Reported Pain Outcomes and More Health Care Utilization.

Some previous research has examined pain-related variables on the basis of prescription opioid dose, but data from studies involving patient-reported outcomes have been limited. This study examined the relationships between prescription opioid dose and self-reported pain intensity, function, quality of life, and mental health. Participants were recruited from 2 large integrated health systems, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (n = 331) and VA Portland Health Care System (n = 186). To be included, participants had to have musculoskeletal pain diagnoses and be receiving stable doses of long-term opioid therapy. We divided participants into 3 groups on the basis of current prescription opioid dose in daily morphine equivalent dose (MED): low dose (5-20 mg MED), moderate dose (20.1-50 mg MED), and higher dose (50.1-120 mg MED) groups. A statistically significant trend emerged where higher prescription opioid dose was associated with moderately sized effects including greater pain intensity, more impairments in functioning and quality of life, poorer self-efficacy for managing pain, greater fear avoidance, and more health care utilization. Rates of potential alcohol and substance use disorders also differed among groups. Findings from this evaluation reveal significant differences in pain-related and substance-related factors on the basis of prescription opioid dose. PERSPECTIVE: This study included 517 patients who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy and compared differences on pain- and mental health-related variables on the basis of prescription opioid dose. Findings reveal small- to medium-sized differences on pain-related variables, alcohol and substance use, and health care utilization on the basis of the dose of opioid prescribed.

Primary care physicians, acupuncture and chiropractic clinicians, and chronic pain patients: a qualitative analysis of communication and care coordination patterns.

BACKGROUND: A variety of people, with multiple perspectives, make up the system comprising chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) treatment. While there are frequently problems in communication and coordination of care within conventional health systems, more opportunities for communicative disruptions seem possible when providers use different explanatory models and are not within the same health management system. We sought to describe the communication system surrounding the management of chronic pain from the perspectives of allopathic providers, acupuncture and chiropractor (A/C) providers, and CMP patients. METHODS: We collected qualitative data from CMP patients (n = 90) and primary care physicians (PCPs) (n = 25) in a managed care system, and community acupuncture and chiropractic care providers (n = 14) who received high levels of referrals from the system, in the context of a longitudinal study of CMP patients' experience. RESULTS: Multiple points of divergence and communicative barriers were identified among the main stakeholders in the system. Those that were most frequently mentioned included issues surrounding the referral process (requesting, approving) and lack of consistent information flow back to providers that impairs overall management of patient care. We found that because of these problems, CMP patients were frequently tasked and sometimes overwhelmed with integrating and coordinating their own care, with little help from the system. CONCLUSIONS: Patients, PCPs, and A/C providers desire more communication; thus systems need to be created to facilitate more open communication which could positively benefit patient outcomes.

Acupuncture and chiropractic care: utilization and electronic medical record capture.

OBJECTIVES: To describe acupuncture and chiropractic use among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) at a health maintenance organization, and explore issues of benefit design and electronic medical record (EMR) capture. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Kaiser Permanente members meeting EMR diagnostic criteria for CMP were invited to participate. The survey included questions about self-identified presence of CMP, use of acupuncture and chiropractic care, use of ancillary self-care modalities, and communication with conventional medicine practitioners. Analysis of survey data was supplemented with a retrospective review of EMR utilization data. RESULTS: Of 6068 survey respondents, 32% reported acupuncture use, 47% reported chiropractic use, 21% used both, and 42% used neither. For 25% of patients using acupuncture and 43% of those using chiropractic care, utilization was undetected by the EMR. Thirty-five percent of acupuncture users and 42% of chiropractic users did not discuss this care with their health maintenance organization (HMO) clinicians. Among chiropractic users, those accessing care out of plan were older (P < .01), were more likely to use long-term opioids (P = .03), and had more pain diagnoses (P = .01) than those accessing care via clinician referral or self-referral. For acupuncture, those using the clinician referral mechanism exhibited these same characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of participants had used acupuncture, chiropractic care, or both. While benefit structure may materially influence utilization patterns, many patients with CMP use acupuncture and chiropractic care without regard to their insurance coverage. A substantial percentage of acupuncture and chiropractic use thus occurs beyond detection of EMR systems, and many patients do not report such care to their HMO clinicians.

Report of the National Institutes of Health task force on research standards for chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed nonspecific and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The purpose of this article is to disseminate the report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) task force on research standards for cLBP. METHODS: The NIH Pain Consortium charged a research task force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel developed a 3-stage process, each with a 2-day meeting. RESULTS: The panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research subjects (drawing heavily on the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved these recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. CONCLUSIONS: The RTF believes that these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of cLBP. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document and undergo continual improvement.

Comparison of complementary and alternative medicine with conventional mind-body therapies for chronic back pain: protocol for the Mind-body Approaches to Pain (MAP) randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The self-reported health and functional status of persons with back pain in the United States have declined in recent years, despite greatly increased medical expenditures due to this problem. Although patient psychosocial factors such as pain-related beliefs, thoughts and coping behaviors have been demonstrated to affect how well patients respond to treatments for back pain, few patients receive treatments that address these factors. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which addresses psychosocial factors, has been found to be effective for back pain, but access to qualified therapists is limited. Another treatment option with potential for addressing psychosocial issues, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), is increasingly available. MBSR has been found to be helpful for various mental and physical conditions, but it has not been well-studied for application with chronic back pain patients. In this trial, we will seek to determine whether MBSR is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for persons with chronic back pain, compare its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with CBT and explore the psychosocial variables that may mediate the effects of MBSR and CBT on patient outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: In this trial, we will randomize 397 adults with nonspecific chronic back pain to CBT, MBSR or usual care arms (99 per group). Both interventions will consist of eight weekly 2-hour group sessions supplemented by home practice. The MBSR protocol also includes an optional 6-hour retreat. Interviewers masked to treatment assignments will assess outcomes 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks postrandomization. The primary outcomes will be pain-related functional limitations (based on the Roland Disability Questionnaire) and symptom bothersomeness (rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale) at 26 weeks. DISCUSSION: If MBSR is found to be an effective and cost-effective treatment option for patients with chronic back pain, it will become a valuable addition to the limited treatment options available to patients with significant psychosocial contributors to their pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.