Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Implementation Strategies to Overcome Barriers to Delivering Chronic Pain Treatments: A NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to illustrate the process of stakeholder-engaged intervention mapping approach to identify implementation strategies to overcome data-driven prioritized barriers to receiving chronic pain services for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers (n = 63) with 2 or more years' experience treating persons with TBI, interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021 provided data for identification of barriers. TBI, chronic pain, and qualitative research subject matter experts (SMEs) participated in the mapping approach. DESIGN: Participatory-based research design, using descriptive and intervention mapping approaches. RESULTS: Four barriers to accessing chronic pain treatment by persons with TBI which emerged from provider interviews were prioritized for intervention mapping: cognitive deficits of patients (67%); patient comorbidities (63%); mental health and/or substance abuse issues (59%); and patient participation (62%). SMEs used prioritized barriers to develop 4 primary objectives and implementation strategies designed to: (1) engage consumers to validate and identify strategies; (2) tailor pain treatment and delivery to overcome barriers; (3) develop and disseminate guidelines and best practices when delivering care to persons with TBI to support spread; and (4) increase awareness, skills, and readiness of workforce to deliver pain treatment to persons with TBI. SMEs used an evidence-based approach to develop a mapping matrix of the prioritized barriers, implementation objectives, and aligned implementation strategies to impact change. CONCLUSION: Implementation science is needed to facilitate knowledge translation into practice for this complex population to overcome barriers to care. Implementation strategies to address barriers to accessing chronic pain care for individuals with TBI were chosen through a participatory approach to engaging SMEs to support these rehabilitation implementation efforts. Future work includes gathering input from individuals with TBI and chronic pain and to move the intervention (implementation) mapping matrix forward to inform future implementation research, policy, and practice.

Provider Perspectives of Facilitators and Barriers to Reaching and Utilizing Chronic Pain Healthcare for Persons With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Qualitative NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project.

OBJECTIVE: To identify facilitators and barriers to reaching and utilizing chronic pain treatments for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) organized around an Access to Care framework, which includes dimensions of access to healthcare as a function of supply (ie, provider/system) and demand (ie, patient) factors for a specified patient population. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians (n = 63) with experience treating persons with TBI were interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study. MAIN MEASURES: Semistructured open-ended interview of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access to Care framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the core domains (reaching care, utilizing care) and relevant subdimensions from the supply (affordability of providing care, quality, coordination/continuity, adequacy) and demand (ability to pay, adherence, empowerment, caregiver support) perspective. RESULTS: Themes from provider interviews focused on healthcare reaching and healthcare utilization resulted in 19 facilitators and 9 barriers reaching saturation. The most themes fell under the utilization core domain, with themes identified that impact the technical and interpersonal quality of care and care coordination/continuity. Accessibility and availability of specialty care and use of interdisciplinary team that permitted matching patients to treatments were leading thematic facilitators. The leading thematic barrier identified primarily by medical providers was cognitive disability, which is likely directly linked with other leading barriers including high rates of noncompliance and poor follow-up in health care. Medical and behavioral health complexity was also a leading barrier to care and potentially interrelated to other themes identified. CONCLUSION: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning for this complex population to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatment. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of individuals with TBI/caregivers to inform interventions to improve access to chronic pain treatment for persons with TBI.

Provider Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to Identifying, Perceiving, and Seeking Healthcare for Chronic Pain After TBI: A Qualitative NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project.

OBJECTIVE: Identify determinants to chronic pain healthcare for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) informed by an Access to Care Framework. Findings related to the Access Framework's core domains of identifying a need, perceptions of the need, and seeking healthcare are reported. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers (n = 63) with 2 or more years of experience treating persons with TBI interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study. MAIN MEASURES: Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access Framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the domains of identifying healthcare needs, perceptions of needs, and factors related to healthcare seeking from the supply and demand perspective. RESULTS: For the overall sample, 14 facilitators and 6 barriers were endorsed by more than 20% of the provider cohort. Top facilitators included on-site availability of needed resources and treatments (94%), adequate time and provider capability to ensure patient comprehension of diagnosis and treatment plans (83%), and establishing patient motivation and buy-in with the treatment plan (75%). Barriers most endorsed included policies impacting access (46%), wait times for services (41%), and patient uncertainty regarding telehealth commonly due to cognitive and physical challenges (37%). Unique determinants are reported across civilian versus Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems and different provider types. CONCLUSION: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatments for persons with TBI. Results will inform future interventions at the systems, patient, and policy levels of healthcare that can be tailored to healthcare settings (VA, Civilian) and types of providers (rehabilitation therapists, psychologists, and medical). Evidence-informed interventions may help minimize healthcare disparities experienced by persons with TBI and facilitate access to high-quality, evidence-informed chronic pain care.