Decision-making among adolescents prescribed antipsychotic medications: Interviews to gain perspectives of youth without psychosis or mania.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the experiences of youth who had been prescribed antipsychotics but did not have psychosis, mania, autism spectrum disorder, or developmental disability. METHODS: Twenty-three qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with youth aged 11-18 who had been prescribed an antipsychotic medication but did not have a diagnosis of psychotic disorder, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder, or developmental disability. Participants were recruited from four U.S. healthcare systems participating in the pragmatic trial Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth (SUAY). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using template analysis techniques. RESULTS: Prior to initiating an antipsychotic medication, most participants experienced behavioral health crises; many felt that they had no options other than to start the medication. Other core themes included: (1) antipsychotics had both positive psychosocial outcomes, such as improvement of family life, and adverse effects, such as drowsiness or weight gain, (2) antipsychotics were only one part of a broader treatment plan, (3) efforts were made to maximize benefits and minimize side effects through careful titration, (4) feedback from friends and family was important in the decision to continue. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide valuable insights into how to engage youth in conversations around the use of antipsychotics.

Characteristics of Patients with Non-Cancer Pain and Perceived Severity of COVID-19 Related Stress.

Synopsis Patients with non-cancer pain reported increased pain and pain interference during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We determined if pain, prescription opioid use, and comorbidities were associated with perceived COVID-19-related stress as the pandemic peaked. Analysis of survey data revealed that depression/anxiety, pain severity, and pain interference were most strongly and consistently associated with greater stress due to COVID-19 related changes in lifestyle, worsening of emotional/mental health and worsening pain. Identifying specific stressful experiences that most impacted patients with non-cancer pain may help target public health and treatment interventions. Background: During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with chronic pain reported increased pain severity and interference. This study measured the association between pain, prescription opioid use, and comorbidities with perceived COVID-19-related stress as the pandemic peaked in the United States. Methods: From 9/2020 to 3/2021, the first 149 subjects from a prospective cohort study of non-cancer pain, completed a survey which contained the Complementary and Integrative Research (CAIR) Pandemic Impact Questionnaire (C-PIQ). Respondents also reported whether the pandemic has contributed to their pain or opioid use. Bivariate comparisons explored patient characteristics with each CAIR domain. Results: Respondents mean age was 54.6 (±11.3) years, 69.8% were female, 64.6% were White. Respondent characteristics were not associated with reading/watching/thinking about the pandemic or with worry about health. Depression/anxiety (p=0.003), using any prescription opioid in the prior three months (p=0.009), higher morphine milligram equivalent used (p=0.005), higher pain severity (p=0.011), and higher pain interference (p=0.0004) were all positively and significantly associated with moderate to severe stress due to COVID-19 related lifestyle changes. Depression/anxiety, pain severity, and pain interference were positively associated with COVID-19-related worsening emotional/mental health. Depression/anxiety were significantly (p<0.0001) associated with reporting that the pandemic made their pain worse. Conclusion: Depression, anxiety, pain severity, and pain interference were most strongly and consistently associated with COVID-19 changes in way of life, worsening of emotional/mental health, and worsening pain. Identifying specific stressful experiences that most impacted patients with noncancer pain may inform public health and treatment interventions.

Utilizing Primary Care to Engage Patients on Opioids in a Psychological Intervention for Chronic Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Given the risks of opioids for pain management, we need nonpharmacological interventions that patients will engage in and that can reduce opioid use. The purpose was to examine whether offering a psychological intervention in primary care can engage patients receiving opioids for pain management and to explore whether the intervention influences opioid use. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a 5-session psychological intervention in primary care for chronic pain. Patients with chronic pain (N = 220) were approached to enroll in the RCT. Electronic health records were reviewed to determine whether patients were prescribed opioids or pain medications at the time they were approached about the RCT and the 6-months following the intervention. RESULTS: Enrollees and non-enrollees had similar rates of opioid prescriptions, morphine milligram equivalent dose of opioids, and rates of other pain medication prescriptions (p> .05). However, no males with an opioid prescription enrolled. Though not significant, those in the intervention had lower odds of having an opioid prescription 6 months following the intervention (p= .09, OR= .32). Those randomized to the intervention had lower odds of having a non-opioid pain medication prescription (p= .01, OR= .17). CONCLUSIONS: Having an opioid prescription did not interfere with enrollment, suggesting that primary care may be useful for engaging patients on opioids in a psychological treatment for chronic pain. However, this may be true for women, and not men. This intervention also showed promise for decreasing opioid use and warrants further study.

A brief psychological intervention for chronic pain in primary care: Examining long-term effects from a pilot randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of evidence-based psychological interventions for pain management, there are barriers that interfere with treatment engagement. A brief intervention integrated into primary care reduced barriers and showed promising benefits from pre- to post-intervention. However, it is unknown whether a brief intervention can provide long-term effects. The purpose of this study was to examine whether a brief psychological intervention offered benefits in pain severity, pain interference, pain catastrophizing, and depressive symptoms at 1- and 6-month follow-ups. METHODS: The majority of participants who enrolled in a pilot randomized clinical trial of a 5-session psychological intervention for chronic pain in primary care completed the 1-month (n = 54; 90%) and 6-month follow-ups (n = 50; 83.3%). Participants completed measures of pain severity, pain interference, pain catastrophizing, and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: From baseline to the 6-month follow-up, those in the intervention group had significantly better outcomes for pain severity (p = 0.01) and pain catastrophizing (p = 0.003) compared with the control group. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups for pain interference and depression. The percentage of patients in the intervention experiencing clinically significant improvement across all outcomes was higher than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that a brief psychological intervention for chronic pain in primary care may offer longer-term benefits similar to that of lengthier interventions. Future studies should examine this through a randomized clinical trial with a larger sample size.

Utilizing primary care to engage patients on opioids in a psychological intervention for chronic pain.

Context: Chronic pain, one of the most prevalent issues encountered in primary care, is often treated with opioid prescriptions. Overuse of these medications can cause overdose and death, creating a dire need for alternative treatment methods. Psychological interventions are effective for improving pain and distress, yet are underutilized. Physicians report difficulty engaging patients already on opioids in these interventions; it is possible that offering this intervention in a primary care setting may alleviate this barrier. Objective: Determine whether opioid prescriptions are related to patients engaging in a brief psychological intervention for chronic pain management in primary care. Study Design: Secondary analysis of a pilot randomized clinical trial of a 5-session psychological intervention for chronic pain. Setting: Primary care clinic in an urban setting Patient Population: Patients with chronic pain (N= 220) were approached to enroll in a pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) for a brief, psychological intervention for pain in primary care. Of these, 60 participated and 160 declined. Instruments: Electronic health records were reviewed to determine whether patients were prescribed opioids or pain medications at the time they were approached about the RCT. Main outcome: Comparing opioid prescriptions in enrollees versus non-enrollees. Results: There was not a significant difference between enrollees and non-enrollees in the rate of opioid prescriptions (18.3% vs. 20%, p= .78), the morphine milligram equivalent dose of opioids (M= 17.64, SD= 22.91 vs. M= 18.07, SD= 18.19; p= .95), or the rate of non-opioid pain prescriptions (33.3% vs. 40%, p = .37). When examining for gender differences, among women, there were similar rates between enrollees and non-enrollees in the rate of opioid prescriptions (23.4% vs. 17%, p = .36). However, no males with an opioid prescription enrolled, whereas 25% of men who did not enroll had an opioid prescription. Conclusions: Among all patients, opioid prescriptions were not related to enrollment in the RCT. This suggests that engaging patients who are on opioids in a psychological treatment for chronic pain, specifically in a primary care setting, may increase utilization. However, this may be true for women, but not men. Further work needs to be done to identify methods to increase psychological intervention engagement among all patients receiving opioids, but especially men.

A Brief Psychological Intervention for Chronic Pain in Primary Care: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Although evidence-based psychological interventions improve chronic pain, many patients do not engage in behavioral health services. Offering a brief intervention in a medical setting may provide benefits to patients with chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to examine preliminary outcomes of a brief psychological intervention for chronic pain delivered in primary care. DESIGN: Pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care clinic. SUBJECTS: Sixty participants with chronic pain were randomized to a 5-session psychological intervention or treatment-as-usual control group. METHODS: Participants completed pre- and post-intervention measures assessing pain severity, pain interference, pain catastrophizing, depression, and anxiety. RESULTS: Most participants (76.7%) randomized to the intervention completed all sessions. Compared to the control group, those in the intervention had decreases in pain severity (P = .048), pain catastrophizing (P = .04), and depression (P = .01) from pre- to post-intervention. Within the intervention group, there was a significant improvement in pain interference scores (P = 0.02). Within the intervention group, effect sizes were medium to large for changes in pain severity, pain interference, pain catastrophizing, and depression scores. There were no significant changes in anxiety scores. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that delivery of a brief psychological intervention for chronic pain in primary care appears to offer improvements in pain severity, pain interference, pain catastrophizing, and depression. Findings suggest that shorter-term psychological interventions may offer similar benefits as longer-term ones. Furthermore, offering a brief intervention in primary care may increase access and engagement in behavioral pain management services. Future research should examine this through a fully-powered trial with longer-term outcomes.

The Prescription Opioids and Depression Pathways Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Results from studies using medical record data indicate chronic (>90 days) opioid analgesic use (OAU) is associated with new depressive episodes (NDE), worsening depression and risk for depression recurrence. This body of evidence is based on retrospective cohort studies and medical record data. Limitations of existing research are overcome in a new prospective cohort study of the opioid-depression relationship. METHODS: Prospective cohort of 1500 adult patients recruited from two health care systems. Eligible subjects started a new period of OAU and have 30 to 90 days of OAU at baseline. Diagnostic assessments for psychiatric disorders, structured measures of pain, pain functioning, opioid use, social support, sleep and impulsivity will be obtained at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-up. Baseline participants will be invited to 12 monthly brief assessments of pain-related functioning, depression symptoms and opioid use. INNOVATION: Robust control for confounding by indication and detailed phenotyping of depression and opioid use disorder. ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Chronic OAU will be associated with new onset of a depression phenotype characterized by anhedonia and somatic symptoms. This relationship will be partly, but not completely explained by impaired functioning and low social support. CONCLUSIONS: Although the annual number of opioid prescriptions in the United States has decreased, over 190 million patients have OAU each year. If chronic OAU leads to a clinically meaningful affective disorder, independent of pain, then we need to consider depression an important adverse effect of chronic OAU and adjust care for chronic pain accordingly.

Variation in patterns of health care before suicide: A population case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The United States has experienced a significant rise in suicide. As decision makers identify how to address this national concern, healthcare systems have been identified as an optimal location for prevention. OBJECTIVE: To compare variation in patterns of healthcare use, by health setting, between individuals who died by suicide and the general population. DESIGN: Case-Control Study. SETTING: Eight healthcare systems across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 2674 individuals who died by suicide between 2000 and 2013 along with 267,400 individuals matched on time-period of health plan membership and health system affiliation. MEASUREMENTS: Healthcare use in the emergency room, inpatient hospital, primary care, and outpatient specialty setting measured using electronic health record data during the 7-, 30-, 60-, 90-, 180-, and 365-day time periods before suicide and matched index date for controls. RESULTS: Healthcare use was more common across all healthcare settings for individuals who died by suicide. Nearly 30% of individuals had a healthcare visit in the 7-days before suicide (6.5% emergency, 16.3% outpatient specialty, and 9.5% primary care), over half within 30 days, and >90% within 365 days. Those who died by suicide averaged 16.7 healthcare visits during the year. The relative risk of suicide was greatest for individuals who received care in the inpatient setting (aOR = 6.23). There was both a large relative risk (aOR = 3.08) and absolute utilization rate (43.8%) in the emergency room before suicide. LIMITATIONS: Participant race/ethnicity was not available. The sample did not include uninsured individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important data about how care utilization differs for those who die by suicide compared to the general population and can inform decision makers on targeting of suicide prevention activities within health systems.

Diagnosed Mental Health Conditions and Risk of Suicide Mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Although mental health conditions are risk factors for suicide, limited data are available on suicide mortality associated with specific mental health conditions in the U.S. population. This study aimed to fill this gap. METHODS: This study used a case-control design. Patients in the case group were those who died by suicide between 2000 and 2013 and who were patients in eight health care systems in the Mental Health Research Network (N=2,674). Each was matched with 100 general population patients from the same system (N=267,400). Diagnostic codes for five mental health conditions in the year before death were obtained from medical records: anxiety disorders, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, depressive disorders, and schizophrenia spectrum disorder. RESULTS: Among patients in the case group, 51.3% had a recorded psychiatric diagnosis in the year before death, compared with 12.7% of control group patients. Risk of suicide mortality was highest among those with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, after adjustment for age and sociodemographic characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=15.0) followed by bipolar disorder (AOR=13.2), depressive disorders (AOR=7.2), anxiety disorders (AOR=5.8), and ADHD (AOR=2.4). The risk of suicide death among those with a diagnosed bipolar disorder was higher in women than men. CONCLUSIONS: Half of those who died by suicide had at least one diagnosed mental health condition in the year before death, and most mental health conditions were associated with an increased risk of suicide. Findings suggest the importance of suicide screening and providing an approach to improve awareness of mental health conditions.