Perceived barriers, facilitators and usefulness of a psychoeducational intervention for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression in primary care.

Background and aims: Self-management interventions have the potential to improve patient' pain condition as they involve tasks aimed at managing symptoms and reducing interference with activities, mood and relationships due to pain. However, research on factors that facilitate or hinder pain self-management has overlooked patients with both chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression in primary care settings, also leaving unattended patient views on the usefulness of such programs. Thus, the main aim of this study was to gather meaningful information to help promoting adequate self-management. Specifically, it attempts to identify patients' perceptions of barriers and facilitators of group-based psychoeducational intervention and to explore its perceived usefulness in promoting self-management. Method: This qualitative study explored perceived barriers and facilitators of a psychoeducational intervention for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression previously tested in a Randomized Control Trial. We conducted focus groups and individual interviews with fifteen adult patients with both chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression recruited from primary care centres in Tarragona province (Catalonia, Spain). A content thematic analysis was carried out to examine the data. This study followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines. Results: Findings revealed that perceived barriers included lack of motivation, time constraints, pain, depression, ineffectiveness of pain-relief strategies and activity avoidance. Facilitators were having a supportive family/friends, the positive effects of self-management, high motivation, being a proactive patient. Peer support and identification, the positive effect of sessions, and free expression were highlighted as key elements of the psychoeducational intervention. Conclusion: The psychoeducational intervention was perceived as useful in promoting self-management practices. Barriers and facilitators in using self-management strategies were related, mainly, to internal personal characteristics of the patients being similar among different cultural backgrounds and distinct chronic conditions. Implications: These findings can help to guide clinicians in the development and implementation of more effective pain self-management interventions for patients with chronic pain and depression by attending to their needs and preferences.

Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care program for managing major depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain in primary care: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We designed a collaborative care program for the integrated management of chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression, which frequently coexist in primary care patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this program compared with care as usual. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial. Results were monitored over a 12-month period. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We performed cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspectives of the healthcare system and society using an intention-to-treat approach with imputation of missing values. RESULTS: We evaluated 328 patients (167 in the intervention group and 161 in the control group) with chronic musculoskeletal pain and major depression at baseline. From the healthcare system perspective, the mean incremental cost was €234 (p = .17) and the mean incremental effectiveness was 0.009 QALYs (p = .66), resulting in an ICER of €23,989/QALY. Costs from the societal perspective were €235 (p = .16), yielding an ICER of €24,102/QALY. These estimates were associated with a high degree of uncertainty illustrated on the cost-effectiveness plane. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our expectations, the collaborative care program had no significant effects on health status, and although the additional costs of implementing the program compared with care as usual were not high, we were unable to demonstrate a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio, largely due to the high degree of uncertainty surrounding the estimates.