RESUMEN
Background: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain are highly prevalent comorbid conditions. Veterans dually burdened by PTSD and chronic pain experience more severe outcomes compared to either disorder alone. Few studies have enrolled enough women Veterans to test gender differences in pain outcomes [catastrophizing, intensity, interference] by the severity of PTSD. Aim: Examine gender differences in the association between PTSD symptoms and pain outcomes among Veterans enrolled in a chronic pain clinical trial. Methods: Participants were 421 men and 386 women Veterans with chronic pain who provided complete data on PTSD symptoms and pain outcomes. We used hierarchical linear regression models to examine gender differences in pain outcomes by PTSD symptoms. Results: Adjusted multivariable models indicated that PTSD symptoms were associated with higher levels of pain catastrophizing (0.57, 95% CI [0.51, 0.63]), pain intensity (0.30, 95% CI [0.24, 0.37]), and pain interference (0.46, 95% CI [0.39, 0.52]). No evidence suggesting differences in this association were found in either the crude or adjusted models (all interaction p-values<0.05). Conclusion: These findings may reflect the underlying mutual maintenance of these conditions whereby the sensation of pain could trigger PTSD symptoms, particularly if the trauma and pain are associated with the same event. Clinical implications and opportunities testing relevant treatments that may benefit both chronic pain and PTSD are discussed.
RESUMEN
Since 2006, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has instituted policy changes and training programs to support system-wide implementation of two evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To assess lessons learned from this unprecedented effort, we used PubMed and the PILOTS databases and networking with researchers to identify 32 reports on contextual influences on implementation or sustainment of EBPs for PTSD in VHA settings. Findings were initially organized using the exploration, planning, implementation, and sustainment framework (EPIS; Aarons et al. in Adm Policy Ment Health Health Serv Res 38:4-23, 2011). Results that could not be adequately captured within the EPIS framework, such as implementation outcomes and adopter beliefs about the innovation, were coded using constructs from the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) framework (Glasgow et al. in Am J Public Health 89:1322-1327, 1999) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; Damschroder et al. in Implement Sci 4(1):50, 2009). We highlight key areas of progress in implementation, identify continuing challenges and research questions, and discuss implications for future efforts to promote EBPs in large health care systems.
