Predictors of attrition in an interdisciplinary pain management program.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate the extent to which demographic and clinical characteristics predict which patients drop out of an interdisciplinary pain management program (IPP). RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: Participants (N = 178 outpatients, 18-75 years of age) received treatment for various chronic pain conditions in an IPP (including biopsychosocial assessment, cognitive-behavioral, and physical therapies). Separate logistic regression analyses identified the demographic and clinical variables most predictive of attrition across five domains: (a) demographics, (b) number of medical and non/psychiatric diagnoses, (c) opioid use (yes versus no)/risk of misuse, (d) pain-related cognition and behavior, and (e) physical, social, and mental well-being. Significant predictors from the five domains were integrated in a final multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: Among patients exposed to a 4-week IPP, 34% dropped out. In the final model, significant predictors of higher odds of attrition included younger age or being unemployed. Also, patients on opioids at preintervention had higher odds of completing the IPP than patients not on opioids at preintervention. Follow-up analyses revealed 24 of 37 completers (65%) on opioids at preintervention reduced or eliminated use over the course of the IPP. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Because findings are limited by sample and design characteristics, they require replication yet offer novel hypotheses for identifying patients at risk of attrition. Specifically, patients with preintervention opioid use (contrasted with opioid dependence) may particularly benefit from an IPP. Patients at highest risk for early dropout can be targeted for specific engagement interventions to promote completion and effectiveness of IPP. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Who Benefits from Chronic Opioid Therapy? Rethinking the Question of Opioid Misuse Risk.

Beginning in the late 1990s, a movement began within the pain management field focused upon the underutilization of opioids, thought to be a potentially safe and effective class of pain medication. Concern for addiction and misuse were present at the start of this shift within pain medicine, and an emphasis was placed on developing reliable and valid methods and measures of identifying those at risk for opioid misuse. Since that time, the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of chronic opioid therapy (COT) has not been established. Rather, the harmful, dose-dependent deleterious effects have become clearer, including addiction, increased risk of injuries, respiratory depression, opioid induced hyperalgesia, and death. Still, many individuals on low doses of opioids for long periods of time appear to have good pain control and retain social and occupational functioning. Therefore, we propose that the question, "Who is at risk of opioid misuse?" should evolve to, "Who may benefit from COT?" in light of the current evidence.

Long-term effectiveness of a comprehensive pain management program: strengthening the case for interdisciplinary care.

Chronic pain, a debilitating medical condition affecting approximately 15% of the US population, leads to individual suffering and costs to society in terms of health care dollars and lost productivity. To examine the effectiveness of a comprehensive pain management program, data from 108 program participants were evaluated. Preprogram, postprogram, and 6-month follow-up data were collected from 80 participants, and preprogram, postprogram, and 1-year data were collected from 46 participants. Outcomes data from several domains were assessed: pain severity, emotional distress, interference of pain on function, perceived control of pain, treatment helpfulness, and number of hours resting. Within-subject repeated-measure analyses of variance found statistically significant findings on the six outcome measures utilized in this study for both the 6-month and 1-year samples. Examination of 95% confidence intervals revealed no overlap in pretreatment scores with 6-month and 1-year outcomes in five of the six domains studied. Mean scores on emotional distress did not maintain statistical significance in the 6-month or 1-year review. Overall, this study strengthens the case for interdisciplinary care for chronic pain management and provides evidence for the long-term effectiveness of this therapy. Furthermore, this study lends support to the notion that interdisciplinary treatments are effective in targeting multiple domains affected by the pain condition.

Comparison of epidural Depo-Medrol vs. aqueous betamethasone in patients with low back pain.

Despite the popularity of epidural steroid injections for low back pain, there still remains a lack of consensus on which type of steroid to inject. Most comparison studies regarding epidural steroids are based on an assumption that different types of steroids are equal as long as equipotent doses are utilized. In the spring of 2002, a national shortage of all depo steroids allowed the authors to compare epidural methylprednisolone (Depo-Medrol) to a non depo form of betamethasone in patients with low back pain. Patients who received epidural methylprednisolone (Depo-Medrol) reported significant reduction in pain ratings as well as disability scores after 4 weeks, while patients receiving betamethasone showed no significant difference in pain or disability scores. This study shows that the aqueous steroid betamethasone is not an effective alternative to the commonly used depo-steroid methylprednisolone (Depo-Medrol) when injected epidurally in patients with lumbar pain. The study also shows that the anti-inflammatory effect of a depo-steroid can be greater than a non-depo steroid, even at equipotent doses. This should be an important factor to consider when reviewing epidural steroid outcome studies, where the type of steroid might affect results as much as other variables such as route of administration, volume of injectate, or use of fluoroscopy.

A preliminary study of multidimensional pain inventory profile differences in predicting treatment outcome in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate whether the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) is effective for predicting response to interdisciplinary treatment in a heterogeneous group of patients with chronic pain. Changes in patients' profiles to a predominantly adaptive coping status after treatment also were assessed. DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted of patients with an array of pain conditions. A standard evaluation battery, including measures of self-reported pain and disability, psychosocial functioning, helpfulness of the program, and medication use, was used for all patients before and after treatment. The MPI status of patients was evaluated and differential response to treatment was assessed. METHODS: Sixty-five consecutive patients with chronic pain were evaluated before and immediately after participation in an interdisciplinary pain treatment program. This heterogeneous pain-condition cohort was also differentiated on the basis of the MPI to evaluate potential differential response to treatment. RESULTS: Results revealed significant improvement among these patients with chronic pain when a comprehensive interdisciplinary pain-management program was administered. This improvement was seen across the variety of outcomes evaluated, including narcotic medication use. Most important, the MPI subgroup classification did not significantly predict the degree of positive treatment outcome; all subgroups improved. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were major differences in psychosocial functioning before treatment, the MPI was not found to significantly predict response to interdisciplinary treatment in a heterogeneous group of patients with chronic pain. Thus, a comprehensive interdisciplinary treatment program may achieve its full effectiveness across a wide array of pain/disability-related outcome variables, regardless of initial MPI profile categorization.

Outcomes of a pain management educational initiative at Baylor University Medical Center.

Baylor University Medical Center established a pain initiative group in 1996 to research the effectiveness of pain management throughout the hospital. After analyzing 300 patient surveys, the group undertook an intensive program to educate physicians, nurses, and patients regarding newer pain management techniques. The outcome of this educational initiative was reassessed in 2001 based on surveys completed by 100 patients after discharge. Results showed marked improvement in patient education regarding pain management. In 2001, 93% of patients were offered education and choices regarding pain management vs only 36% in 1996. Fewer patients were afraid to "bother" their nurses to ask for pain medication (3% in 2001 vs 14% in 1996). Waiting time for administration of analgesics decreased considerably. The number of patients reporting moderate to severe pain decreased significantly since 1996, yet the overall satisfaction with pain relief remained high and did not change significantly. The overall incidence of patients reporting moderate to severe pain was significantly less at Baylor than the national average. In conclusion, attitudes, misconceptions, and fears about pain management can be changed with intensive educational programs.

Can psychological distress be detected by response to a needle stick?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether an exaggerated response to a mildly painful stimulus would reflect abnormal levels of psychological distress in patients and, conversely, whether patients who show abnormal levels of psychological distress would have a low tolerance for a mildly painful stimulus. A total of 101 patients were given a mildly painful stimulus (30-gauge needle stick) and asked to record the amount of pain they felt on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = no pain, 10 = severe pain). The mean response to the needle stick was a 1.9 on this scale. There was no gender difference, and the average did not change with increasing age. Psychological testing showed that 18% of the 101 patients had psychological distress prior to the needle stick. The pain ratings to needle stick of these 18 patients were not significantly different than those of patients without psychological distress (2.3 vs 1.9 on the scale). Seven percent of patients had a very low tolerance for pain (pain score of > or = 7). Evaluation of the psychological testing results on these patients showed no significant difference compared with known normal psychological values. Therefore, the assumption that patients who over-respond to a mildly painful stimulus have psychological distress is not valid. The results of this study suggest only that patients who over-respond to a needle stick have a low tolerance for pain. Furthermore, it is not valid to assume that patients who have psychological distress, poor coping abilities, or marked stress will respond in an exaggerated fashion to a mildly painful stimulus.