Using Daily Ratings to Examine Treatment Dose and Response in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the Co-Operative Pain Education and Self-Management Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) has a strong evidence base, but little is known about when treatment benefits are achieved. The present study is a secondary analysis of individuals with chronic back pain recruited for a noninferiority trial comparing interactive voice response (IVR) CBT-CP with in-person CBT-CP. METHODS: On the basis of data from daily IVR surveys, a clinically meaningful change was defined as a 30% reduction in pain intensity (n = 108) or a 45% increase in daily steps (n = 104) compared with the baseline week. We identified individuals who achieved a meaningful change at any point during treatment, and then we compared those who maintained a meaningful change in their final treatment week (i.e., responders) with those who did not or who achieved a meaningful change but lapsed (i.e., nonresponders). RESULTS: During treatment, 46% of participants achieved a clinically meaningful decrease in pain intensity, and 66% achieved a clinically significant increase in number of steps per day. A total of 54% of patients were classified as responders in terms of decreases in pain intensity, and 70% were responders in terms of increases in step count. Survival analyses found that 50% of responders first achieved a clinically meaningful change by week 4 for pain intensity and week 2 for daily steps. Dropout and demographic variables were unrelated to responder status, and there was low agreement between the two measures of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, results suggest that most responders improve within 4 weeks. Evaluating treatment response is highly specific to the outcome measure, with little correlation across outcomes.

Pre-implementation formative evaluation of cooperative pain education and self-management expanding treatment for real-world access: A pragmatic pain trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an evidence-based treatment for improving functioning and pain intensity for people with chronic pain with extensive evidence of effectiveness. However, there has been relatively little investigation of the factors associated with successful implementation and uptake of CBT-CP, particularly clinician and system level factors. This formative evaluation examined barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation and uptake of CBT-CP from the perspective of CBT-CP clinicians and referring primary care clinicians. METHODS: Qualitative interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were conducted at nine geographically diverse Veterans Affairs sites as part of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing synchronous, clinician-delivered CBT-CP and remotely delivered, technology-assisted CBT-CP. Analysis was informed by a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinicians (CBT-CP clinicians = 17, primary care clinicians = 9) from nine VA medical centers participated in individual qualitative interviews conducted by telephone from April 2019 to August 2020. Four themes emerged in the qualitative interviews: (1) the complexity and variability of referral pathways across sites, (2) referring clinician's lack of knowledge about CBT-CP, (3) referring clinician's difficulty identifying suitable candidates for CBT-CP, and (4) preference for interventions that can be completed from home. CONCLUSIONS: This formative evaluation identified clinician and system barriers to widespread implementation of CBT-CP and allowed for refinement of the subsequent implementation of two forms of CBT-CP in an ongoing pragmatic trial. Identification of relative difference in barriers and facilitators in the two forms of CBT-CP may emerge more clearly in a pragmatic trial that evaluates how treatments perform in real-world settings and may provide important information to guide future system-wide implementation efforts.

Incorporating walking into cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain: safety and effectiveness of a personalized walking intervention.

We examined the effectiveness and safety of a walking program offered as part of cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP). Participants were randomized to 10 weeks of CBT-CP, delivered either in person or by interactive voice response. Participants reported pedometer-measured step counts daily throughout treatment and received a weekly goal to increase their steps by 10% over the prior week's average. Walking-related adverse events (AEs) were assessed weekly. Participants (n = 125) were primarily male (72%), and white (80%) with longstanding pain (median: 11 years). There was no significant difference between treatment groups in rate of change in daily steps, but there was a significant increase in steps from baseline to treatment termination in the combined study sample (1648 steps (95% CI 1063-2225)). Participants classified as active doubled. AEs were mostly minor and temporary. Treatment was effective and safe whether the program was delivered in-person or remotely.Trial registration number: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01025752.

Co-Operative Pain Education and Self-management (COPES) Expanding Treatment for Real-World Access (ExTRA): Pragmatic Trial Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Given access barriers to cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP), this pragmatic superiority trial will determine whether a remotely delivered CBT-CP intervention that addresses these barriers outperforms in-person and other synchronous forms of CBT-CP for veterans with musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: This pragmatic trial compares an asynchronous form of CBT-CP that uses interactive voice response (IVR) to allow patients to participate from their home (IVR CBT-CP) with synchronous CBT-CP delivered by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinician. Veterans (n=764; 50% male) with chronic musculoskeletal pain throughout nine VA medical centers will participate. The primary outcome is pain interference after treatment (4 months). Secondary outcomes, including pain intensity, depression symptom severity, sleep, self-efficacy, and global impression of change, are also measured after treatment. Where possible, outcomes are collected via electronic health record extraction, with remaining measures collected via IVR calls to maintain blinding. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation metrics will be collected to evaluate factors related to implementation. A budget impact analysis will be performed. SUMMARY: This pragmatic trial compares the outcomes, cost, and implementation of two forms of CBT-CP as delivered in the real-world setting. Findings from the trial can be used to guide future policy and implementation efforts related to these interventions and their use in the health system. If one of the interventions emerges as superior, resources can be directed to this modality. If both treatments are effective, patient preferences and health care system factors will take precedence when making referrals. Implications of COVID-19 on treatment provision and trial outcomes are discussed.

Stakeholder Engagement in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Emphasizing Relationships to Improve Pain Management Delivery and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

Predictors of Participation in a Nonpharmacological Intervention for Chronic Back Pain.

Objective: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) has been identified as an evidence-based adjunct or alternative to opioid pain care. However, little is known about which patients participate in CBT-CP. This study examined predictors of enrollment in a noninferiority trial of in-person vs technology-based CBT-CP for patients with chronic back pain. Setting: A single Veterans Health Affairs (VHA) medical center. Subjects: Veterans with chronic back pain. Design and Methods: For eligible participants (N = 290), individual factors (demographics, distance from a VHA medical center, pain intensity, receipt of opioid prescription, and recruitment method) collected at trial screening were examined to identify predictors of enrollment (i.e., signed consent form). Of those who enrolled, duration of participation in the treatment portion of the study was examined. Results: Among eligible patients, 54% declined enrollment due to lack of interest. Regression analyses revealed that patients not in receipt of an opioid were more likely to enroll. The probability of being in the trial long enough to receive a "dose" of treatment (3 visits or more) was 0.76 (0.04). Conclusions: Overall, enrollment rates were low. However, most patients who enrolled in the study (102 of 134 signed consent) were retained and received a treatment dose. Patients not receiving opioids were more likely to enroll, suggesting that patients who are prescribed opioids, an important group for treatment outreach, are likely underengaged. Identifying predictors of enrollment in CBT-CP may help increase recruitment efficiency and assist in targeting patients who may benefit but are not currently interested in treatment.

Developing a typology of patient-generated behavioral goals for cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP): classification and predicting outcomes.

Patient-generated treatment goals describe what patients value, yet the content of these goals, and the relationship among goal types, goal accomplishment, and treatment outcomes has received little examination. We used inductive sorting to categorize patient-generated goals made by 147 adults receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic pain. The resulting goal categories were: Physical Activity (29.0%), Functional Status (24.6%), Wellness (16.3%), Recreational Activities (11.3%), House/Yard Work (9.7%), Socializing (7.1%), and Work/School (2.0%). Next, we examined associations between number of goals by category, goal accomplishment, and clinically meaningful improvements in pain-related interference, pain intensity and depressive symptoms. Improvement in all outcome domains was related to goal accomplishment. Additionally, depressive symptoms were related to number of Physical Activity, House/Yard Work, Recreational Activities, and Wellness goals, whereas improved pain-intensity was significantly related to House/Yard Work. Classifying patient-generated goals facilitates investigation of the relationships among goal type, goal accomplishment and treatment outcomes.

Cooperative pain education and self-management (COPES): study design and protocol of a randomized non-inferiority trial of an interactive voice response-based self-management intervention for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine report "Relieving Pain in America" recommends the promotion of patient self-management of pain for all people with pain. Given the high prevalence of chronic pain in the US, new strategies are needed to enhance access to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and other evidence-based treatments designed to facilitate self-management of chronic pain conditions. Although CBT is efficacious, many patients have limited or no access to CBT. Technology-assisted delivery of CBT may improve access while maintaining efficacy. METHODS/DESIGN: We describe a randomized non-inferiority trial of interactive voice response (IVR)-based CBT for patients with chronic low back pain. This intervention uses daily IVR monitoring and weekly pre-recorded therapist feedback, based on patient-reported information, to provide treatment for patients at home. A total of 230 patients with chronic low back pain are being identified from a single statewide health system serving US military veterans. Participants are randomized to receive either ten weeks of in-person CBT or IVR-based CBT. The primary outcome is pain intensity as measured by the Numeric Rating Scale immediately post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include pain-related interference, emotional functioning, and quality of life measured immediately post treatment, and 6 and 9 months post recruitment. Exploratory objectives of the study are to examine: (1) potential mediators of impact on clinical outcomes (treatment retention, self-reported skill practice ratings, IVR call adherence, and treatment satisfaction); and (2) moderators of treatment engagement, adherence to therapist recommendations for pain coping skill practice, and effects on clinical outcomes. DISCUSSION: This non-inferiority trial may identify an alternative to resource intensive in-person CBT that allows many more patients to receive care while also increasing retention of those enrolled in the program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01025752 . Registered 3 December 2009.

A randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy compared with diabetes education for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

A randomized controlled trial compared cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and diabetes education (ED) as an adjunctive treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). We examined change from baseline to 12- and 36-week follow-up in overall pain intensity (NRS), neuropathic pain intensity/quality, pain interference, and mental health functioning, among others. Although CBT participants demonstrated improvement in pain intensity NRS, there were no between-condition differences at either follow-up. CBT reduced neuropathic pain intensity at 12-weeks more than ED. At 36-weeks, CBT was superior to ED for improving pain interference and mental health functioning. Results provide evidence of benefit of CBT for DPNP.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00830011.

Patient-Centered Pain Care Using Artificial Intelligence and Mobile Health Tools: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Importance: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is a safe and effective alternative to opioid analgesics. Because CBT-CP requires multiple sessions and therapists are scarce, many patients have limited access or fail to complete treatment. Objectives: To determine if a CBT-CP program that personalizes patient treatment using reinforcement learning, a field of artificial intelligence (AI), and interactive voice response (IVR) calls is noninferior to standard telephone CBT-CP and saves therapist time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a randomized noninferiority, comparative effectiveness trial including 278 patients with chronic back pain from the Department of Veterans Affairs health system (recruitment and data collection from July 11, 2017-April 9, 2020). More patients were randomized to the AI-CBT-CP group than to the control (1.4:1) to maximize the system's ability to learn from patient interactions. Interventions: All patients received 10 weeks of CBT-CP. For the AI-CBT-CP group, patient feedback via daily IVR calls was used by the AI engine to make weekly recommendations for either a 45-minute or 15-minute therapist-delivered telephone session or an individualized IVR-delivered therapist message. Patients in the comparison group were offered 10 therapist-delivered telephone CBT-CP sessions (45 minutes/session). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ; range 0-24), measured at 3 months (primary end point) and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and pain interference. Consensus guidelines were used to identify clinically meaningful improvements for responder analyses (eg, a 30% improvement in RMDQ scores and pain intensity). Data analyses were performed from April 2021 to May 2022. Results: The study population included 278 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [12.2] years; 248 [89.2%] men; 225 [81.8%] White individuals). The 3-month mean RMDQ score difference between AI-CBT-CP and standard CBT-CP was -0.72 points (95% CI, -2.06 to 0.62) and the 6-month difference was -1.24 (95% CI, -2.48 to 0); noninferiority criterion were met at both the 3- and 6-month end points (P < .001 for both). A greater proportion of patients receiving AI-CBT-CP had clinically meaningful improvements at 6 months as indicated by RMDQ (37% vs 19%; P = .01) and pain intensity scores (29% vs 17%; P = .03). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. Pain therapy using AI-CBT-CP required less than half of the therapist time as standard CBT-CP. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this randomized comparative effectiveness trial indicated that AI-CBT-CP was noninferior to therapist-delivered telephone CBT-CP and required substantially less therapist time. Interventions like AI-CBT-CP could allow many more patients to be served effectively by CBT-CP programs using the same number of therapists. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02464449.

Interactive Voice Response-Based Self-management for Chronic Back Pain: The COPES Noninferiority Randomized Trial.

Importance: Recommendations for chronic pain treatment emphasize multimodal approaches, including nonpharmacologic interventions to enhance self-management. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based treatment that facilitates management of chronic pain and improves outcomes, but access barriers persist. Cognitive behavioral therapy delivery assisted by health technology can obviate the need for in-person visits, but the effectiveness of this alternative to standard therapy is unknown. The Cooperative Pain Education and Self-management (COPES) trial was a randomized, noninferiority trial comparing IVR-CBT to in-person CBT for patients with chronic back pain. Objective: To assess the efficacy of interactive voice response-based CBT (IVR-CBT) relative to in-person CBT for chronic back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a noninferiority randomized trial in 1 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. A total of 125 patients with chronic back pain were equally allocated to IVR-CBT (n = 62) or in-person CBT (n = 63). Interventions: Patients treated with IVR-CBT received a self-help manual and weekly prerecorded therapist feedback based on their IVR-reported activity, coping skill practice, and pain outcomes. In-person CBT included weekly, individual CBT sessions with a therapist. Participants in both conditions received IVR monitoring of pain, sleep, activity levels, and pain coping skill practice during treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change from baseline to 3 months in unblinded patient report of average pain intensity measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included changes in pain-related interference, physical and emotional functioning, sleep quality, and quality of life at 3, 6, and 9 months. We also examined treatment retention. Results: Of the 125 patients (97 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 57.9 [11.6] years), the adjusted average reduction in NRS with IVR-CBT (-0.77) was similar to in-person CBT (-0.84), with the 95% CI for the difference between groups (-0.67 to 0.80) falling below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1 indicating IVR-CBT is noninferior. Fifty-four patients randomized to IVR-CBT and 50 randomized to in-person CBT were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. Statistically significant improvements in physical functioning, sleep quality, and physical quality of life at 3 months relative to baseline occurred in both treatments, with no advantage for either treatment. Treatment dropout was lower in IVR-CBT with patients completing on average 2.3 (95% CI, 1.0-3.6) more sessions. Conclusions and Relevance: IVR-CBT is a low-burden alternative that can increase access to CBT for chronic pain and shows promise as a nonpharmacologic treatment option for chronic pain, with outcomes that are not inferior to in-person CBT. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01025752.