Mapping Evidence-Based Non-Opioid and Non-Pharmacological Pain Management Modalities Across Minnesota: The Non-Opioid Pain Alleviation Information Network Project.

Objective: The Non-Opioid Pain Alleviation Information Network (NOPAINMN) project was designed to identify, consolidate, and map evidence-based non-opioid and non-pharmacological pain management complementary and integrative health (CIH) modalities for chronic pain management across Minnesota into a searchable and informational website (www.nopainmn.org). Methods: The Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health's Pain Task Force White Paper identifying evidence-based research of non-pharmacological pain practice (NPPC) was reviewed and referenced. National and state certifying boards and accrediting organizations for NPPC modalities were accessed to identify Minnesota-based NPPC providers' name, business/health-system affiliation, address, contact information, and credentials. The NOPAINMN website displays these data in a consumer-facing website with searchable fields such as NPPC modality type, and location with varying distances. The website was ß-tested by practitioners and stakeholders for optimization. Eight main NPPC modalities and their respective subcategories were identified and mapped: Acupuncture; Integrative Medical Care (Functional medicine consultation and Integrative medicine consultation); Massage Therapy; Mind-Body Therapies (Biofeedback, Clinical Hypnosis, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, and Music Therapy); Movement Therapies (Tai Chi, qigong, and Yoga Therapy); Psychology (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy); Rehabilitative Therapies (Physical and Occupational Therapy); and Spinal Manipulation. Results: All information compiled resulted in 17,155 providers/practitioners. Physical Therapy had the greatest number of reported providers (n = 5224), followed by Occupational Therapy (n = 3792), Psychology (n = 3324), Chiropractic (n = 3033), Acupuncture (n = 591), and Massage Therapy (n = 544). The Resource Map included 56 major health systems, 686 facilities, 2651 solo or private group practices, and 14 academic training schools. With web-based cross-referencing, providers and facilities were affiliated and linked with health systems to produce an interconnected mapping system. ß-Testing with patients found that the website was reported as relatively easy to use and informative. Conclusion: The website was created to assist individuals, health care providers, insurance carriers, and health care facilities in finding evidence-based information and resources on NPPC to guide, support, and proactively manage and engage chronic pain patients across Minnesota.

Lessons Learned: Recruiting Research Participants from an Underrepresented Patient Population at a Safety Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to clinical research studies is challenging, especially when conducted in safety net settings. We sought to compare the efficacy of different recruitment strategies in an NIH-funded study assessing treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). METHODS: Targeted mailing, in-person table-based recruitment ("tabling") in the waiting room, and telephone calling were used to enroll subjects into one of two studies of treatment burden: a survey study to validate a brief measure of treatment burden for quality assessment (study 1) or a qualitative study to develop a treatment burden clinical communication tool (study 2). RESULTS: Over 50% of subjects in each study were African American or African immigrants. In study 1, the enrollment goal of 200 was reached within 4 months. Tabling enrolled 78.5% of patients, while the remainder (21.5%) were enrolled from phone calls to eligible patients identified through the electronic medical record (EMR). In study 2, 340 eligible patients were identified through the EMR, and 7 (2.1%) were successfully enrolled via mailed invitations and responses. Retention rates (66% in study 1 and 71% in study 2) were reasonable in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Study recruiting goals in our safety net population were rapidly reached using the tabling method, which had substantively higher enrollment rates than mailings or telephone calls based on EMR reports. Future trials could compare recruitment strategies across settings and clinical populations.

Deriving and validating a brief measure of treatment burden to assess person-centered healthcare quality in primary care: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: In primary care there is a need for more quality measures of person-centered outcomes, especially ones applicable to patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). The aim of this study was to derive and validate a short-form version of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS), an established measure of treatment burden, to help fill the gap in quality measurement. METHODS: Patient interviews (30) and provider surveys (30) were used to winnow items from the PETS (60 items) to a subset targeting person-centered care quality. Results were reviewed by a panel of healthcare providers and health-services researchers who finalized a pilot version. The Brief PETS was tested in surveys of 200 clinic and 200 community-dwelling MCC patients. Surveys containing the Brief PETS and additional measures (e.g., health status, medication adherence, quality of care, demographics) were administered at baseline and follow-up. Correlations and t-tests were used to assess validity, including responsiveness to change of the Brief PETS. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated on mean differences. RESULTS: Winnowing and panel review resulted in a 34-item Brief PETS pilot measure that was tested in the combined sample of 400 (mean age = 57.9 years, 50% female, 48% white, median number of conditions = 5). Reliability of most scales was acceptable (alpha > 0.70). Brief PETS scores were associated with age, income, health status, and quality of chronic illness care at baseline (P < .05; rho magnitude range: 0.16-0.66). Furthermore, Brief PETS scores differentiated groups based on marital and education status, presence/absence of a self-management routine, and optimal/suboptimal medication adherence (P < .05; ES range: 0.25-1.00). Declines in patient-reported physical or mental health status over time were associated with worsening PETS burden scores, while improvements were associated with improving PETS burden scores (P < .05; ES range: 0.04-0.44). Among clinic patients, 91% were willing to complete the Brief PETS as part of their clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: The Brief PETS (final version: 32 items) is a reliable and valid tool for assessing person-centered care quality related to treatment burden. It holds promise as a means of giving voice to patient concerns about the complexity of disease management.