Pain experiences among those living with hidradenitis suppurativa: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Pain is rated by patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) as the disease's most impactful symptom. HS therapies are often insufficient to control inflammatory disease activity and pain. A better understanding of patient experiences with pain may improve patient-provider relationships and help identify strategies for addressing HS pain. OBJECTIVES: This qualitative study sought to characterize lived pain experiences of those with HS. METHODS: English-speaking patients ≥ 18 years old with a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of HS and an average numerical rating scale pain score of ≥ 1 over the preceding week were recruited from a single academic medical centre in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Semistructured interviews were conducted from November 2019 to March 2020 to explore participants' HS pain experiences and the subsequent impact on their lives. Thematic saturation was reached after interviewing 21 participants. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Among 21 study participants, the median 7-day average pain score was 6 (interquartile range 3-7; scale ranges from 0 to 10, with 10 being most pain). Participants' descriptions of pain were consistent with nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain and itch. Pain impacted multiple life domains, including physical limitations (decreased mobility and impaired sleep), decreased psychological wellbeing (irritability, depression, loss of control, and difficulty communicating pain experiences) and impaired social relationships (social isolation, intimacy problems and difficulty fulfilling social responsibilities). Although participants reported chronic discomfort, acutely painful and unpredictable HS disease flares caused more distress and quality-of-life (QoL) burden. Participants frequently treated their pain without input from the medical team, sometimes with unsafe medication doses or combinations. Factors contributing to self-management of pain included difficulty accessing timely outpatient care during disease flares and fear of stigma from healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: When present, HS-related pain may impact not only physical wellbeing but also mental health and relationships. In addition to therapies that target the inflammatory disease burden, treating the symptom of pain may improve patients' QoL and wellbeing. Because patients with HS have difficulty explaining their pain, proactively asking them about pain may identify unmet needs, facilitate better pain control and improve QoL. Further, the influence of HS-related pain on numerous aspects of QoL suggests the need for multidisciplinary, patient-centred approaches to HS pain management.

Process evaluation of a systemic intervention to identify and support partner violence survivors in a multi-specialty health system.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is highly prevalent in the United States and impacts the physical and mental health and social well-being of those who experience it. Healthcare settings are important intervention points for IPV screening and referral, yet there is a wide range of implementation of IPV protocols in healthcare settings in the U.S., and the evidence of the usefulness of IPV screening is mixed. This process evaluation investigates the facilitators and barriers to implementing Coordinated Care for IPV Survivors through the M Health Community Network ("M Health Network"), an intervention that aimed to standardize IPV screening and referral in a multi-specialty clinic and surgery center (CSC). Two validated IPV screens were introduced and mandated to be done by rooming staff at least once every 3 months with all clinic patients regardless of gender; the Humiliation Afraid Rape Kick (HARK) for presence of IPV and the shortened Danger Assessment (DA-5) for lethality of IPV. Upon a positive screen, the patient was offered immediate informational resources and, if willing, was referred to a social worker for care coordination with a community organization. METHODS: Semi-structured, individual and group process interviews with clinic managers and clinic staff at 8 CSC clinics (N = 24) were undertaken at 3,12, and 27 months after intervention start. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the research team (N = 3) post-implementation. A Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook was used to code data in two rounds. After each round, thick description was used to write detailed and contextual descriptions of each code. Facilitators and barriers to implementation were identified during the second round of thick description. RESULTS: Facilitators to implementation were clinic staff support, dedication, and flexibility and research team engagement. Barriers were lack of prioritization, loss of intervention champions, lack of knowledge about intervention protocol and resources, staff and patient discomfort discussing IPV, and operational issues with screen technology. CONCLUSIONS: The IPV protocol was implemented, but faced common barriers. CFIR is a complex, but comprehensive, tool to guide process evaluation for IPV screening and referral interventions in health systems in the U.S.

Longitudinal trends in screening males and females for intimate partner violence as part of a systemic multi-specialty health system intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To assess intimate partner violence screening for males and females in a health system that underwent a systemic intervention to improve survivor identification and response. Electronic health record data from 13 clinics were accessed for February of 2017, 2018, and 2019 to calculate screening rates and positive screening rates for intimate partner violence by clinic and sex-race groups (n = 11,693 non-Hispanic White females; n = 4318 Other females; n = 9184 non-Hispanic White males; n = 3441 Other males). Linear mixed effects models were used to examine whether screening rates differed significantly over time and by sex-race group. RESULTS: Screening rates were 31% for the first 2 years and 16% for 2019. Screening rates varied greatly by clinic. Dermatology, psychiatry, and otolaryngology clinics had average or above screening rates all 3 years. Differences in screening rates across sex-race groups were minimal. Average positive screen rates were 1.3%, 0.4%, and 2.6% in 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively, with psychiatry having the highest positive screen rate. Positive screen rates were highest for non-Hispanic White females (3.5%). Universal screening in this health system was not yielding survivors comparable to existing estimates among clinic-based populations. Other identification approaches require testing to effectively identify survivors within the health sector.