'It was a joint plan we worked out together'. How the I-WOTCH programme enabled people with chronic non-malignant pain to taper their opioids: a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial found that a group-based educational intervention to support people using strong opioids for chronic non-malignant pain helped a significant proportion of people to stop or decrease opioid use with no increase in pain-related disability. We report a linked process evaluation of the group-based intervention evaluated in comparison to a usual-care control group that received a self-help booklet and relaxation CD. METHODS: We interviewed 18 intervention facilitators, and 20 intervention and 20 control participants who had chronic non-malignant pain and were recruited from general (family) practices in the UK. Quantitative data included change mechanism questions on the trial questionnaires which explored motivation, expectations and self-efficacy. Fidelity was assessed by listening to a sample of audio-recorded group sessions and nurse consultations. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using 'follow a thread' and a mixed-methods matrix. FINDINGS: Four overarching themes emerged: (1) the right time to taper, (2) the backdrop of a life with chronic pain, (3) needing support and (4) the benefits of being in a group. Delivery fidelity was good, adherence (83%) and competence (79%) across a range of intervention groups. Staff delivering the intervention found three typical responses to the intervention: resistance, open to trying and feeling it was not the right time. The group experience was important to those in the intervention arm. It provided people with a forum in which to learn about the current thinking about opioid usage and its effects. It also gave them examples of how feasible or personally relevant coming off opioids might be. CONCLUSION: The process evaluation data showed that the I-WOTCH intervention was well delivered, well received and useful for most interviewees. Being 'the right time' to taper and having support throughout tapering, emerged as important factors within the context of living with chronic pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49470934.

Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS): a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS) multicentre randomised trial evaluated the impact a group education and self-management support intervention with a best usual care plus relaxation control for people living with chronic headache disorders (tension type headaches or chronic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache). Here we report the process evaluation exploring potential explanations for the lack of positive effects from the CHESS intervention. METHODS: The CHESS trial included 736 (380 intervention: 356 control) people across the Midlands and London UK. We used a mixed methods approach. Our extensive process evaluation looked at context, reach, recruitment, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and experiences of participating in the trial, and included participants and trial staff. We also looked for evidence in our qualitative data to investigate whether the original causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. RESULTS: The CHESS trial reached out to a large diverse population and recruited a representative sample. Few people with chronic tension type headaches without migraine were identified and recruited. The expected 'dose'of the intervention was delivered to participants and intervention fidelity was high. Attendance ("dose received") fell below expectation, although 261/380 (69%) received at least at least the pre-identified minimum dose. Intervention participants generally enjoyed being in the groups but there was little evidence to support the causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. CONCLUSIONS: From a process evaluation perspective despite our extensive data collection and analysis, we do not have a clear understanding of why the trial outcome was negative as the intervention was delivered as planned. However, the lack of evidence that the intervention causal assumptions brought about the planned behaviour change may provide some insight. Our data suggests only modest changes in managing headache behaviours and some disparity in how participants engaged with components of the intervention within the timeframe of the study. Moving forwards, we need a better understanding of how those who live with chronic headache can be helped to manage this disabling condition more effectively over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN79708100 .

Moderators of Cognitive Outcomes from an Exercise Program in People with Mild to Moderate Dementia.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to estimate whether baseline participant variables were able to moderate the effect of an exercise intervention on cognition in patients with mild to moderate dementia. DESIGN: Subgroup analysis of a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community-based gym/rehabilitation centers. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 494 community-dwelling participants with mild to moderate dementia. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to a moderate- to high-intensity aerobic and strength exercise program or a usual care control group. Experimental group participants attended twice weekly 60- to 90-minute gym sessions for 4 months. Participants were prescribed home exercises for an additional hour per week during the supervised period and 150 minutes each week after the supervised period. MEASUREMENTS: Multilevel regression model analyses were undertaken to identify individual moderators of cognitive function measured through the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale score at 12 months. RESULTS: When tested for a formal interaction effect, only cognitive function assessed by the baseline number cancellation test demonstrated a statistically significant interaction effect (-2.7 points; 95% confidence interval = -5.14 to -0.21). CONCLUSION: People with worse number cancellation test scores may experience greater progression of cognitive decline in response to a moderate- to high-intensity exercise program. Further analyses to examine whether these findings can be replicated in planned sufficiently powered analyses are indicated.

Usual care and a self-management support programme versus usual care and a relaxation programme for people living with chronic headache disorders: a randomised controlled trial protocol (CHESS).

INTRODUCTION: Chronic headaches are poorly diagnosed and managed and can be exacerbated by medication overuse. There is insufficient evidence on the non-pharmacological approaches to helping people living with chronic headaches. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management education support programme on top of usual care for patients with chronic headaches against a control of usual care and relaxation. The intervention is a 2-day group course based on education, personal reflection and a cognitive behavioural approach, plus a nurse-led one-to-one consultation and follow-up over 8 weeks. We aim to recruit 689 participants (356 to the intervention arm and 333 to the control) from primary care and self-referral in London and the Midlands. The trial is powered to show a difference of 2.0 points on the Headache Impact Test, a patient-reported outcome measure at 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include health related quality of life, self-efficacy, social activation and engagement, anxiety and depression and healthcare utilisation. Outcomes are being measured at 4, 8 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial will provide data on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management support programme for chronic headaches. The results will inform commissioning of services and clinical practice. North West - Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee have approved the trial. The current protocol version is 3.6 date 7 March 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN79708100.

Implementing a hybrid cognitive-behavioural therapy for pain-related insomnia in primary care: lessons learnt from a mixed-methods feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of implementing a brief but intensive hybrid cognitive behavioural therapy (Hybrid CBT) for pain-related insomnia. DESIGN: Mixed-methods, with qualitative process evaluation on a two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five adult patients with chronic pain and insomnia. INTERVENTION: Hybrid CBT or self-help control intervention. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes measures were the Insomnia Severity Index and interference scale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes measures were the present pain intensity rating from the BPI, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and EQ-5D-5L. RESULTS: Fourteen participants were randomised to receive Hybrid CBT, 11 to receive the self-help control treatment. Of the 14 in the Hybrid CBT group, 9 (64%) completed all four treatment sessions (4 discontinued due to poor health; 1 due to time constraints). Adherence to the self-help control treatment was not monitored. The total number of participants completing the 12-week and 24-week follow-ups were 12 (6 in each group; Hybrid CBT: 43%; self-help: 55%) and 10 (5 in each group; Hybrid CBT: 36%; self-help: 45%). Based on the data available, candidate outcome measures appeared to be sensitive to changes associated with interventions. Thematic analysis of pre-postintervention interview data revealed satisfaction with treatment content among those who completed the Hybrid CBT, whereas those in the self-help control treatment wanted more contact hours and therapist guidance. Other practical suggestions for improvement included shortening the duration of each treatment session, reducing the amount of assessment paperwork, and minimising the burden of sleep and pain monitoring. CONCLUSION: Important lessons were learnt with regard to the infrastructure required to achieve better patient adherence and retention. Based on the qualitative feedback provided by a subset of treatment completers, future trials should also consider lowering the intensity of treatment and streamlining the data collection procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17294365.

Experiences of people taking opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain: a qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography.

OBJECTIVE: To review qualitative studies on the experience of taking opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) or coming off them. DESIGN: This is a qualitative evidence synthesis using a seven-step approach from the methods of meta-ethnography. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We searched selected databases-Medline, Embase, AMED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus (Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index)-for qualitative studies which provide patients' views of taking opioid medication for CNMP or of coming off them (June 2017, updated September 2018). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Papers were quality appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool, and the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group - Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) guidelines were applied. We identified concepts and iteratively abstracted these concepts into a line of argument. RESULTS: We screened 2994 unique citations and checked 153 full texts, and 31 met our review criteria. We identified five themes: (1) reluctant users with little choice; (2) understanding opioids: the good and the bad; (3) a therapeutic alliance: not always on the same page; (4) stigma: feeling scared and secretive but needing support; and (5) the challenge of tapering or withdrawal. A new overarching theme of 'constantly balancing' emerged from the data. CONCLUSIONS: People taking opioids were constantly balancing tensions, not always wanting to take opioids, and weighing the pros and cons of opioids but feeling they had no choice because of the pain. They frequently felt stigmatised, were not always 'on the same page' as their healthcare professional and felt changes in opioid use were often challenging. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 49470934; Pre-results.

Process evaluation protocol for the I-WOTCH study: an opioid tapering support programme for people with chronic non-malignant pain.

INTRODUCTION: The Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic Pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial uses a multicomponent self-management intervention to help people taper their opioid use. This approach is not widely used and its efficacy is unknown. A process evaluation alongside the trial will help to assess how the intervention was delivered, looking at the dose of intervention received and the fidelity of the delivery. We will explore how the intervention may have brought about change through the experiences of the participants receiving and the staff delivering the intervention and whether there were contextual factors involved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods process evaluation will assess how the processes of the I-WOTCH intervention fared and whether these affected the outcomes. We will collect quantitative data, for example, group attendance analysed with statistical methods. Qualitative data, for example, from interviews and feedback forms will be analysed using framework analysis. We will use a 'following a thread' and a mixed methods matrix for the final integrated analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The I-WOTCH trial and process evaluation were granted full ethics approval by Yorkshire and The Humber-South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee on 13 September 2016 (16/YH/0325). All data were collected in accordance with data protection guidelines. Participants provided written informed consent for the main trial, and all interviewees provided additional written informed consent. The results of the process evaluation will be published and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49470934; Pre-results.

Testing a support programme for opioid reduction for people with chronic non-malignant pain: the I-WOTCH randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic non-malignant pain has a major impact on the well-being, mood and productivity of those affected. Opioids are increasingly prescribed to manage this type of pain, but with a risk of other disabling symptoms, when their effectiveness has been questioned. This trial is designed to implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention targeting withdrawal of strong opioids in people with chronic pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group-based multicomponent intervention combined with individualised clinical facilitator led support for the management of chronic non-malignant pain against the control intervention (self-help booklet and relaxation compact disc). An embedded process evaluation will examine fidelity of delivery and investigate experiences of the intervention. The two primary outcomes are activities of daily living (measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Short Form (8A)) and opioid use. The secondary outcomes are pain severity, quality of life, sleep quality, self-efficacy, adverse events and National Health Service (NHS) healthcare resource use. Participants are followed up at 4, 8 and 12 months, with a primary endpoint of 12 months. Between-group differences will indicate effectiveness; we are looking for a difference of 3.5 points on our pain interference outcome (scale 40 to 77). We will undertake an NHS perspective cost-effectiveness analysis using quality adjusted life years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Full approval was given by Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee on 13 September, 2016 (16/YH/0325). Appropriate local approvals were sought for each area in which recruitment was undertaken. The current protocol version is 1.6 date 19 December 2018. Publication of results in peer- reviewed journals will inform the scientific and clinical community. We will disseminate results to patient participants and study facilitators in a study newsletter as well as a lay summary of results on the study website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49470934; Pre-results.

The CHESS trial: protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial of an education and self-management intervention for people with chronic headache.

BACKGROUND: Process evaluation is increasingly common alongside complex randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This evaluation helps in understanding the mechanisms of impact and how the study processes were executed, and it includes any contextual factors which may have implications for the trial results and any future implementation. This process evaluation is for the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) RCT, which is evaluating an education and self-management group behavioural intervention for people with chronic headache. Chronic headache is defined as headaches which are present for 15 or more days per month. The most common types are chronic migraine and chronic tension type and medication overuse headaches. METHODS: We will use a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data will be taken from routine trial data which will help us to assess the reach of the study; i.e. did we reach those whom we expected and from where? Intervention attendance (dose received) and attrition and qualitative data will augment our understanding about reasons why people may not wish to take part in or failed to attend sessions. Interviews with intervention facilitators and trial participants will gain different perspectives on taking part in the trial. Fidelity will be assessed through listening to audio recordings for adherence to course content and competence of the facilitation of a sample of sessions. DISCUSSION: Our process evaluation will allow us to gain insight into how the trial was delivered, the obstacles and enablers encountered and the possible reasons why the interventions may or may not be effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN79708100 . Registered on 16 December 2015.

Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) - a mixed method feasibility study to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-management support programmes are effective in a range of chronic conditions however there is limited evidence for their use in the treatment of chronic headaches. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of four key aspects of a planned, future evaluative trial of a new education and self-management intervention for people with chronic headache: 1) recruiting people with chronic headache from primary care; 2) a telephone interview for the classification of chronic headaches; 3) the education and self-management intervention itself; and 4) the most appropriate patient reported outcomes (PROMS). METHODS: Participants were identified and recruited from general practices in the West Midlands of the UK. We developed a nurse-led chronic headache classification interview and assessed agreement with an interview with headache specialists. We developed and tested a group based education and self-management intervention to assess training and delivery receipt using observation, facilitator, and participant feedback. We explored the acceptability and relevance of PROMs using postal questionnaires, interviews and a smartphone app. RESULTS: Fourteen practices took part in the study and participant recruitment equated to 1.0/1000 registered patients. Challenges to recruitment were identified. We did 107 paired headache classification interviews. The level of agreement between nurse and doctor interviews was very good. We piloted the intervention in four groups with 18 participants. Qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators helped refine the intervention including shortening the overall intervention and increasing the facilitator training time. Participants completed 131 baseline questionnaires, measurement data quality, reliability and validity for headache-specific and generic measures was acceptable. CONCLUSION: This study indicated that recruiting people with chronic headache from primary care is feasible but challenging, our headache classification interview is fit for purpose, our study intervention is viable, and that our choice of outcome measures is acceptable to participants in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN79708100. Registered 16th December 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79708100.

The lived experience of chronic headache: a systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the qualitative literature of the lived experience of people with a chronic headache disorder. BACKGROUND: Chronic headaches affect 3%-4% of the population. The most common chronic headache disorders are chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache and medication overuse headache. We present a systematic review and meta-ethnographic synthesis of the lived experience of people with chronic headache. METHODS: We searched seven electronic databases, hand-searched nine journals and used a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist to appraise study quality. Following thematic analysis we synthesised the data using a meta-ethnographic approach. RESULTS: We identified 3586 unique citations; full texts were examined for 86 studies and 4 were included in the review. Included studies differed in their foci: exploring, patient-centred outcomes, chronic headache as a socially invisible disease, psychological processes mediating impaired quality of life, and the process of medication overuse. Initial thematic analysis and subsequent synthesis gave three overarching themes: 'headache as a driver of behaviour' (directly and indirectly), 'the spectre of headache' and 'strained relationships'. CONCLUSION: This meta-synthesis of published qualitative evidence demonstrates that chronic headaches have a profound effect on people's lives, showing similarities with other pain conditions. There were insufficient data to explore the similarities and differences between different chronic headache disorders.

A longitudinal, qualitative study exploring sustained adherence to a hand exercise programme for rheumatoid arthritis evaluated in the SARAH trial.

PURPOSE: This study explores the experience of participants taking part in a hand exercise programme for people with rheumatoid arthritis with a focus on adherence. The exercise programme was tested in a randomised controlled trial. This parallel qualitative study will inform future implementation into clinical practice. METHOD: Twenty-seven semi-structured interviews from 14 participants were undertaken at two time points (4 and 12 months after randomisation). We collected data of participants' experiences over time. This was guided by an interview schedule. Interview data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis which is informed by phenomenological and hermeneutic theory. We recruited participants from National Health Service rheumatology and therapy departments. RESULTS: At 4 months, 11/14 participants reported continuing with the exercises. By 12 months, 7/13 participants still reported exercising. The ability to establish a routine determined whether participants adhered to the exercise programme. This was sometimes influenced by practical issues. We also identified facilitators and barriers to regular exercise in the themes of the following: the therapeutic encounter, perceived benefit of exercises, attitude of mind, confidence, and unpredictability. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a routine was an important step towards participants being able to exercise independently. Therapists provided participants with skills to continue to exercise while dealing with changes in symptoms and schedules. Potential barriers to long-term exercise adherence need to be taken into account and addressed for successful implementation of this programme. Implications for Rehabilitation Behavioural change components such as the use of an exercise planner (stating intentions of where, when and how), daily diary sheets, and joint goal setting enhance adherence to a hand exercise programme for RA by helping to establish routines. Exercise routines need to be flexible enough to fit in with life and symptom changes whilst delivering a sufficient dosage. Therapists facilitate this process by using behavioural components alongside more commonly used aspects of care (assessment, education, advice, and encouragement) to enable people with RA to become independent exercisers.

Patterns of interaction between factors that enhance or inhibit recovery from chronic low back pain.

PURPOSE: This interview study aimed to capture an account of change in low back pain over time and understand the interaction of known bio-psychosocial risk factors. METHODS: Thirty-four participants from the Back Skills Training (BeST) U.K. trial, evaluating a cognitive behavioural approach intervention for LBP, gave 61 interviews. Semi-structured interviews taken once or twice post intervention explored participants' experiences of LBP and the intervention received. Initial thematic analysis of the data gave themes, which participants spoke about in an integrated way. Rereading of whole transcripts identified interactions between themes, which we classified as helpful or unhelpful to recovery. The team also explored whether there were correlations with Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) scores from the main trial. RESULTS: Web diagrams gave a graphic representation of the interactions between factors, which were highly individual and time specific. We identified three categories of webs; dense web (mostly unhelpful), open web (helpful and unhelpful) and sparse web (mostly helpful). These categories correlated with (RMDQ) scores. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitators as well as potential barriers to recovery give added insight when considering psychosocial risk factors. Web categories highlight patterns of interaction between psychosocial factors, which underlie levels of disability. These patterns of interaction may help to guide clinicians in their choice of treatment approaches.

Exploring the use of the 'Adapted Miracle Question' in the assessment of low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a complex condition, often recurring or chronic, which has proved difficult to characterise. To explore an alternative approach to assessing low back pain, an expert panel adapted the 'Miracle Question' from Solution-Focused Brief Therapy. This asks about a forward scenario of waking without the problems that the client had presented with. The question was adapted to: What would you do if you did not have back pain? OBJECTIVES: To explore the use of the Adapted Miracle Question (AMQ) within an interview study of patients with low back pain. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The AMQ was used in an interview study of 34 participants recruited from the UK Back Skills Training (BeST) trial, assessing the effectiveness of a cognitive behavioural approach intervention for the management of low back pain. Responses to the AMQ were analysed thematically and then case by case. RESULTS: Interviewees talked about details of their activities and ability to function that would be different, and about change to their quality of life. Some talked about work. Five interviewees said that it would make no difference to them. When considered overall, the responses could be categorised as: no change; some change in activity/function; a return to their pre-back pain state; and life would be transformed. CONCLUSION: The AMQ was straightforward to ask and prompted a breadth of responses which may be useful in tailoring treatment. This question warrants further evaluation in the clinical setting.