Costs of Implementing Electronic Context Factor Assessments and Patient-reported Outcomes in Pain Clinic Settings.

BACKGROUND: The Healing Encounters and Attitudes Lists (HEALs) patient-reported measures, consisting of 6 separate context factor questionnaires, predict patients' pain improvements. Our Patient-centered Outcomes Research Initiative-funded implementation project demonstrated success in using HEAL data during clinic consultations to enhance patient engagement, improve patient outcomes, and reduce opioid prescribing. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the resources needed for additional sites to implement HEAL to improve pain care treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN: An observational study from March 1 to November 30, 2021, assessing implementation cost data from invoices, time and salary requirements for clinic personnel training, estimates of non-site-based costs, and one-time resource development costs. SUBJECTS: Unique patients eligible to complete a HEAL survey (N=24,018) and 74 clinic personnel. MEASURES: The Stages of Implementation Completion guided documentation of preimplementation, implementation, and sustainment activities of HEAL pain clinic operations. These informed the calculations of the costs of implementation. RESULTS: The total time for HEAL implementation is 7 months: preimplementation and implementation phases (4 mo) and sustainment (3 mo). One hour of HEAL implementation involving a future clinical site consisting of 2 attending physicians, 1 midlevel provider, 1 nurse manager, 1 nurse, 1 radiology technician, 2 medical assistants, and 1 front desk staff will cost $572. A 10-minute time increment for all clinic staff is $95. Total implementation costs based on hourly rates over 7 months, including non-site-based costs of consultations, materials, and technology development costs, is $28,287. CONCLUSIONS: Documenting our implementation costs clarifies the resources needed for additional new sites to implement HEAL to measure pain care quality and to engage patients and clinic personnel.

Provider perceptions of medication for opioid used disorder (MOUD): A qualitative study in communities with high opioid overdose death rates.

BACKGROUND: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) has been shown to be a safe, cost-effective intervention that successfully lowers risk of opioid overdose. However, access to and use of MOUD has been limited. Our objective was to explore attitudes, opinions, and beliefs regarding MOUD among healthcare and social service providers in a community highly impacted by the opioid overdose epidemic. METHODS: As part of a larger ethnographic study examining neighborhoods in Allegheny County, PA, with the highest opioid overdose death rates, semi-structured qualitative in-person and telephone interviews were conducted with forty-five providers treating persons with opioid use disorders in these communities. An open coding approach was used to code interview transcripts followed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified related to MOUD from the perspectives of our provider participants. Within a variety of health and substance use service roles and settings, provider reflections revealed: (1) different opinions about MOUD as a transition to abstinence or as a long-term treatment; (2) perceived lack of uniformity and dissemination of accurate information of MOUD care, permitting differences in care, and (3) observed barriers to entry and navigation of MOUD, including referrals as a "word-of-mouth insider system" and challenges of getting patients MOUD services when they need it. CONCLUSIONS: Even in communities hard hit by the opioid overdose epidemic, healthcare providers' disagreement about the standard of care for MOUD can be a relevant obstacle. These insights can inform efforts to improve MOUD treatment and access for people with opioid use disorders.

A rapid-cycle assessment strategy for understanding the opioid overdose epidemic in local communities.

Background: Certain communities in the United States experience greater opioid-involved overdose mortality than others. Interventions to stem overdose benefit from contextual understandings of communities' needs and strengths in addressing the opioid crisis. This project aims to understand multiple stakeholder perspectives on the opioid epidemic in communities disproportionately affected by opioid-involved overdose mortality. Methods: We performed a rapid-cycle qualitative assessment study utilizing in-depth interviews with community stakeholders and observations of community meetings in eight communities in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA, disproportionately impacted by opioid-involved overdose mortality. Stakeholder categories included: current and past illicit users of opioids; medical and social service providers; emergency medical services; law enforcement; spouse or other family members of illicit users/former users of opioids; government officials; school officials; community members. Content analysis was utilized to identify themes and answer study questions. Regular feedback to stakeholders was provided to support targeted interventions. Results: We performed semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 130 community stakeholders and 29 community meeting observations in 2018-2019. Participants perceived similar economic and social determinants as origins of the opioid overdose epidemic including lack of economic resources, loss of jobs, transient populations and dilapidated housing. However, they differed in their awareness of and attention to the epidemic. Awareness was dependent on the visibility of opioid use (presence of paraphernalia litter, location of drug users, media coverage, and relationship to users). Overall, there was good knowledge of naloxone for opioid overdose reversal but less knowledge about local syringe services programs. Perceptions of harm reduction efforts were ambivalent. Conclusions: Members of communities impacted by the opioid epidemic perceived that economic downturn was a major factor in the opioid overdose epidemic. However, the varied beliefs within and between communities suggest that interventions need to be tailored according to the cultural norms of place.

"Stories of starting": Understanding the complex contexts of opioid misuse initiation.

Background: The impacts of opioid use disorder and opioid-involved overdose are known, but less is known about the contexts in which people first misuse opioids, and the motivations for continued misuse. Methods: In-depth interviews with 26 individuals in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania with current or past histories of opioid misuse were conducted. Narratives were analyzed to understand the circumstances and influences contributing to initial and continued misuse of opioids. Results: Participants described social and familial contexts that normalized or accepted opioid misuse-this often included their own use of other illicit substances prior to initiating opioids. Participants also described initial use of opioids as related to efforts to cope with physical pain. They also described recognizing and then seeking psychological/emotional benefits from opioids. All three of these themes often overlapped and intersected in these stories of starting opioid misuse. Conclusions: Opioid misuse stemmed from complex interacting influences involving coping with physical and psychological pain, perception that opioids are needed to feel "normal", and acceptance or normalization of opioid use. This suggests a multi-pronged approach to both prevention and treatment are needed.

Complementary and alternative therapies for urinary symptoms: use in a diverse population sample qualitative study.

Study participants reported a range of remedies used to treat urinary symptoms, from popular products, such as saw palmetto, to less commonly known remedies, such as moabi. Participants learned about remedies through social network rather than from their primary care provider.

Patients' experiences of seeking health care for lower urinary tract symptoms.

A gap between experiencing symptoms and receiving effective treatment persists for people with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), even for those who seek health care. In order to better understand how patients experience treatment seeking for LUTS, we interviewed a racially diverse sample of 90 men and women with a range of LUTS about their experiences seeking care. Thematic analysis revealed that patients often disclosed urinary symptoms first to primary care providers during a general examination or a visit for another health problem. Patients seek provider assistance typically when symptoms have intensified or are causing worry, and a desire for treatment trumps potential embarrassment; among women patients, feeling comfortable with a provider also is important for disclosing LUTS.

Moderating perceptions of bother reports by individuals experiencing lower urinary tract symptoms.

We compared reports of symptom bother for the same urinary symptoms to understand why symptom severity and bother do not correspond in a straightforward manner. We used a grounded theory approach to analyze qualitative data from 123 individual interviews and developed a conceptual framework, identifying three symptom perceptions that might moderate symptom bother: causal, relative, and uncertainty. Symptom bother was lower for respondents who viewed symptoms causally (symptoms seemed explainable or "normal") or relatively (urinary symptoms were compared to other symptoms or conditions). Bother tended to be higher for respondents who viewed symptoms with uncertainty (when symptom etiology and course were unknown). A greater portion of respondents in the causal perception group had not sought health care for their symptoms. This conceptual framework is useful for understanding the relationship between reactions to and health care seeking for other symptoms.

Beyond incontinence: the stigma of other urinary symptoms.

AIM: This paper is a report of a study conducted to characterize the stigma of urinary frequency and urgency and differentiate it from the stigma of incontinence and to describe race/ethnic and gender differences in the experience of stigma among a diverse sample of individuals. BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms, including frequency, urgency and incontinence, are susceptible to stigma, but previous stigma research has focused almost exclusively on incontinence. METHOD: The Boston Area Community Health Survey is a population-based, random sample epidemiological survey of urologic symptoms (N = 5503). Qualitative data for this study came from in-depth interviews conducted between 2007 and 2008 with a random subsample of 151 black, white and Hispanic men and women with urinary symptoms. FINDINGS: Respondents reported stigma associated with frequency and urgency - not just incontinence. The stigma of frequency/urgency is rooted in social interruption, loss of control of the body, and speculation as to the nature of a non-specific 'problem'. Overall, the stigma of urinary symptoms hinged upon whether or not the problem was 'perceptible'. Men felt stigmatized for making frequent trips to the bathroom and feared being seen as impotent. Women feared having an unclean body or compromised social identity. Hispanic people in particular voiced a desire to keep their urinary symptoms a secret. CONCLUSION: The stigma of urinary symptoms goes beyond incontinence to include behaviours associated with frequency and urgency. Healthcare practitioners should assess for stigma sequelae (e.g. anxiety, depression) in individuals with frequency and urgency, and stress treatment options to circumvent stigmatization.

Reasons for participation in pain research: can they indicate a lack of informed consent?

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the self-reported reasons for participation in the clinical research of chronic low back pain and to evaluate those reasons in the context of informed consent and the concept of therapeutic misconception. This is the belief that research participation is equivalent to clinical care. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study with semistructured interviews. SETTING: Phone interviews with subjects with chronic low back pain after they completed a double-blind controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two of 60 (86%) randomized controlled trial completers. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent had more than one reason for study participation, including the following: to contribute to research; to seek relief of pain (both short- and long-term); to try a different drug; monetary remuneration; and to have their pain taken seriously. An initial altruistic reason for participation was often followed later in the interview by reasons of personal benefit. In most cases, the single question, "why did you participate?" was insufficient to reveal these multiple reasons. "Personal benefit" had many individual meanings, framed in the context of an illness narrative of coping with chronic pain. Despite reasons of personal benefit, subjects were still able to make the distinction between research and clinical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the adequacy of informed consent requires a thorough understanding of how subjects viewed a study and their reasons for participation. Quantitative-based surveys may not capture the complexities of reasons for study participation. Reasons of personal benefit, seemingly contradictory reasons for participation, or overriding desire for relief may all affect the quality of informed consent. Yet, these issues may not automatically signal the presence of TM.