Experience-based design: Empowering individuals while they wait for interprofessional chronic pain care.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain is highly prevalent and a leading cause of disability. Long wait times for interprofessional care provide an opportunity to introduce web-based interventions that improve psychosocial function and patients' readiness and ability to manage their condition. Here we describe the process of partnering with people with lived experience (PWLE) to develop an online self-management program enhanced by motivational interviewing. We also report the multiphase usability testing of the program. METHODS: PWLE were included in all aspects of this project from program inception to content creation, module development, usability testing, and knowledge dissemination. Phase 1 included the development of the interactive, web-based modules. This process involved weekly meetings and asynchronous content creation with a core team of interprofessional pain experts, researchers, and PWLE. Phase 2 included usability testing by our PWLE and clinical expert advisory. Phase 3 included survey-based usability testing with a sample of 10 PWLE. RESULTS: We created a chronic pain & motivational empowerment program includes a series of eight interactive educational web-based modules. Topics included: setting expectations, chronic pain explained, biopsychosocial factors, empowered management, self-awareness & compassion & acceptance, values, goal setting, and communication. The program is accompanied by a reflection journal and can be enhanced by one-on-one coaching sessions using a motivational interviewing approach. Phase two usability testing resulted in numerous content changes and the addition of accessibility features. Phase 3 usability testing with PWLE found the program highly accessible and easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: The engagement of our PWLE team member and advisors made the online program more relevant, sensitive and helpful to the needs of people with pain. PRACTICAL VALUE: This PWLE-centric project sets the foundation for future work to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of the program for supporting individuals with chronic pain self-manage.

Prescriber adherence to guidelines for chronic noncancer pain management with opioids: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This review quantified prescriber adherence to opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). METHOD: We searched CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and the Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database from inception until June 3, 2019. Studies that focused on provider adherence to opioids guidelines for CNCP in North America were eligible. Four reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were eligible, comprising 17 cross-sectional studies (n = 11,835 providers) and 22 chart reviews (n = 22,512 patients). Survey data indicated that adherence was 49% (95% CI [40, 59]) for treatment agreements, 33% (95% CI [19%, 47%]) for urine drug testing, 48% (95% CI [26%, 71%]) for consultation with drug monitoring program, 57% (95% CI [35%, 79%]) for assessing risk of aberrant medication-taking behavior, and 61% (95% CI [35%, 87%]) for mental health screening. Chart review data indicated that the proportion of patients with documentation was 40% (95% CI [29, 51]) for treatment agreements, 41% (95% CI [32%, 50%]) for urine drug testing, 40% (95% CI [2%, 78%]) for consultation with drug monitoring program, 41% (95% CI [20%, 64%]) for assessing risk of aberrant medication-taking behavior, and 22% (95% CI [9%, 33%]) for mental health screening. Year of publication, practice guideline referenced, and risk of bias explained significant heterogeneity. No study evaluated whether nonadherence to recommendations reflected well-justified deviations to care. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guideline recommendations for opioids for CNCP is low. It is unclear whether nonadherence reflects thoughtful deviations in care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Systematic Review of Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Treatment Facilities.

This study reviewed the published literature evaluating multidisciplinary chronic pain treatment facilities to provide an overview of their availability, caseload, wait times, and facility characteristics. A systematic literature review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines following a search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases. Inclusion criteria stipulated that studies be original research, survey more than one pain treatment facility directly, and describe a range of available treatments. Fourteen articles satisfied inclusion criteria. Results showed little consistency in the research design used to describe pain treatment facilities. Availability of pain treatment facilities was scarce and the reported caseloads and wait times were generally high. A wide range of medical, physical, and psychological pain treatments were available. Most studies reported findings on the percentage of practitioners in different health care professions employed. Future studies should consider using more comprehensive search strategies to survey facilities, improving clarity on what is considered to be a pain treatment facility, and reporting on a consistent set of variables to provide a clear summary of the status of pain treatment facilities. This review highlights important information for policymakers on the scope, demand, and accessibility of pain treatment facilities.

Research Priorities in the Field of Posttraumatic Pain and Disability: Results of a Transdisciplinary Consensus-Generating Workshop.

Background. Chronic or persistent pain and disability following noncatastrophic "musculoskeletal" (MSK) trauma is a pervasive public health problem. Recent intervention trials have provided little evidence of benefit from several specific treatments for preventing chronic problems. Such findings may appear to argue against formal targeted intervention for MSK traumas. However, these negative findings may reflect a lack of understanding of the causal mechanisms underlying the transition from acute to chronic pain, rendering informed and objective treatment decisions difficult. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (IMHA) has recently identified better understanding of causal mechanisms as one of three priority foci of their most recent strategic plan. Objectives. A 2-day invitation-only active participation workshop was held in March 2015 that included 30 academics, clinicians, and consumers with the purpose of identifying consensus research priorities in the field of trauma-related MSK pain and disability, prediction, and prevention. Methods. Conversations were recorded, explored thematically, and member-checked for accuracy. Results. From the discussions, 13 themes were generated that ranged from a focus on identifying causal mechanisms and models to challenges with funding and patient engagement. Discussion. Novel priorities included the inclusion of consumer groups in research from the early conceptualization and design stages and interdisciplinary longitudinal studies that include evaluation of integrated phenotypes and mechanisms.