scholarly journals Whole Health Options and Pain Education (wHOPE): A Pragmatic Trial Comparing Whole Health Team vs Primary Care Group Education to Promote Nonpharmacological Strategies to Improve Pain, Functioning, and Quality of Life in Veterans—Rationale, Methods, and Implementation

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S91-S99
Author(s):  
Karen H Seal ◽  
William C Becker ◽  
Jennifer L Murphy ◽  
Natalie Purcell ◽  
Lauren M Denneson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The Whole Health model of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) emphasizes holistic self-care and multimodal approaches to improve pain, functioning, and quality of life. wHOPE (Whole Health Options and Pain Education) seeks to be the first multisite pragmatic trial to establish evidence for the VA Whole Health model for chronic pain care. Design wHOPE is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing a Whole Health Team (WHT) approach to Primary Care Group Education (PC-GE); both will be compared to Usual VA Primary Care (UPC). The WHT consists of a medical provider, a complementary and integrative health (CIH) provider, and a Whole Health coach, who collaborate with VA patients to create a Personalized Health Plan emphasizing CIH approaches to chronic pain management. The active comparator, PC-GE, is adapted group cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain. The first aim is to test whether the WHT approach is superior to PC-GE and whether both are superior to UPC in decreasing pain interference in functioning in 750 veterans with moderate to severe chronic pain (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include changes in pain severity, quality of life, mental health symptoms, and use of nonpharmacological and pharmacological therapies for pain. Outcomes will be collected from the VA electronic health record and patient-reported data over 12 months of follow-up. Aim 2 consists of an implementation-focused process evaluation and budget impact analysis. Summary This trial is part of the Pain Management Collaboratory, which seeks to create national-level infrastructure to support evidence-based nonpharmacological pain management approaches for veterans and military service personnel.

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 237-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo N Angeles ◽  
Dale Guenter ◽  
Lisa McCarthy ◽  
Martha Bauer ◽  
Miriam Wolfson ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Approximately 18.9% of Canadians live with chronic pain. Primary care reform in Ontario presents unique opportunities to assess approaches to help these patients.OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of an interprofessional primary care-based program for patients living with chronic pain, and to examine the potential impact of such a program on quality of life and health resource utilization.METHODS: >An embedded mixed-methods evaluation (randomized controlled trial with waiting list control and semistructured interviews) of an eight-week series of small group sessions exploring multifactoral aspects of pain management was performed. Participants were randomly assigned to early intervention (EI) or delayed intervention (DI) groups. All participants received the intervention; the DI group served as a control group for comparison with the EI group. Outcomes included the Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), medication use and health care utilization. Qualitative interviews were conducted to identify areas for program improvement.RESULTS: A total of 240 patients were recruited and 63 agreed to participate. The mean (± SD) age of the participants was 55±14.1 years and 62.3% were female. There was no significant difference in the mean change in SF-36v2 summary scores between the EI and DI groups. However, the SF-36v2 subscale score for bodily pain was significantly improved in the EI group compared with the DI group after six months of observation (mean difference = 13.1 points; P<0.05). There was also significant improvement in this score when both groups were pooled and aggregate preintervention and postintervention scores were compared. There was a significant decrease in the mean number of clinic visits in the six-month period following the intervention compared with the six-month period before the intervention (P=0.043).CONCLUSION: An interprofessional program in primary care for patients living with chronic pain may lead to improvements in quality of life and health resource utilization. The challenges to the feasibility of the program and its evaluation are recruitment and retention of patients, leading to the conclusion that the program, as it was conducted in the present study, is not appropriate for this setting.


Pharmacy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 113
Author(s):  
Mo Chen ◽  
Tejal Patel ◽  
Feng Chang

Background: Chronic pain is a prevalent condition, experienced by 15.3% to 55% of Canadians, that is difficult to manage. With their broad accessibility and expertise on drugs, primary care pharmacists can help patients optimize their pain management. Methods: The objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a primary care, pharmacist-driven chronic pain intervention on pain and quality of life in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. A three-month naturalistic prospective study was conducted in primary care settings (five community pharmacies and one Family Health Team) across Ontario, Canada with a total of six pharmacists and 19 study participants. The primary care, pharmacist-driven chronic pain intervention consisted of patient assessments, medication reviews, care plan recommendations, and patient education. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, pain intensity, pain interference, and quality of life were evaluated at baseline and at follow up (week 2 and month 3). Results: Trends towards improvement in pain and quality of life were found, however, these improvements were not statistically significant at follow up (month 3). Conclusions: This study provides the foundational research required to better understand the impact of Ontario pharmacists’ extended role in pain management in non-cancer patients within multiple primary care settings (e.g., Family Health Team, etc.) and has illustrated the importance of modifying and customizing care plans in patients with chronic pain. A larger sample size with tailored outcome measures may be necessary to better highlight significant improvements in pain and quality of life in patients with chronic non-cancer pain using a primary care, pharmacist-driven intervention.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel A. Galán-Martín ◽  
Federico Montero-Cuadrado ◽  
Enrique Lluch-Girbes ◽  
M. Carmen Coca-López ◽  
Agustín Mayo-Iscar ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Chronic musculoskeletal pain affects more than 20% of the population, and the prevalence is increasing, causing suffering, loss of quality of life, disability, and an enormous expenditure on healthcare resources. The most common location for chronic pain is the spine. Many of the treatments used are mainly passive (pharmacological and invasive) and poor outcomes. The treatments currently applied in the public health system do not comply with the recommendations of the main clinical practice guidelines, which suggest the use of educational measures and physical exercise as the first-line treatment. A protocol based on active coping strategies is described, which will be evaluated through a clinical trial and which could facilitate the transfer of the recommendations of the clinical practice guidelines to a primary care setting. Methods Randomised and multicentre clinical trials, which will be carried out in 10 Primary Care centres. The trial will compare the effect of a Pain Neuroscience Education program (six sessions, 10 h) and group physical exercise (18 sessions program carried out in six weeks, 18 h), with usual care physiotherapy treatment. Group physical exercise incorporates dual tasks, gaming, and reinforcement of contents of the educational program. The aim is to assess the effect of the intervention on quality of life, as well as on pain, disability, catastrophism, kinesiophobia, central sensitisation, and drug use. The outcome variables will be measured at the beginning of the intervention, after the intervention (week 11), at six months, and a year. Discussion Therapeutic interventions based on active coping strategies are essential for the treatment of chronic pain and the sustainability of the Public Health System. Demonstrating whether group interventions have an effect size is essential for optimising resources in such a prevalent problem. Trial registration NCT03654235 “Retrospectively registered” 31 August 2018.


2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-67
Author(s):  
Ginger Wood

Purpose: To examine the effects of an 18-month period of Yoga therapy on a single student suffering from chronic pain, specifically fibromyalgia, and to determine what measures are needed to report improvements. Improvements documented over a specific time period in a controlled setting can further the case for using Yoga as a primary means for managing fibromyalgia and chronic pain and also provide a background to establish a working dialogue with practitioners of Western medicine. Study Design: Using case-study research methods, an 18-month period of gentle Iyengar-based Yoga was implemented 1–2x/week in a woman suffering from fibromyalgia and chronic pain. Findings: The findings showed that the student steadily improved in many measures, including pain, body awareness, medications dose/type, body weight, cholesterol, hypertension, bone density, and subjective quality of life measures(increased confidence, improved body image). Conclusions:The information collected during this study provides positive evidence that can assist in the future development of chronic pain management with Yoga therapy. As Yoga therapists, we have a professional obligation to document the changes and improvements our Yoga students are experiencing in a controlled Yoga studio environment. Collecting this information is vital to establishing an open dialogue between practitioners of Western and Eastern medicine. Future case studies and research should include more diverse populations of chronic pain sufferers as well as the use of tools that quantify a student's intangible concerns and complaints(i.e., pain level, quality of life, psychological health,emotional health, ease of daily activity completion, etc.).


2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 264-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne M. Skevington ◽  
Marlene S. Carse ◽  
Amanda C. de C. Williams

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4298-4298
Author(s):  
Holly L. Geyer ◽  
Robyn M. Scherber ◽  
Gina Mazza ◽  
Blake T. Langlais ◽  
Ruben A. Mesa ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: MPN-related pain, including abdominal discomfort (53.2%), and bone pain (48.5%), is a prevalent complaint within the disorder and is associated with impaired patient quality of life, reduction in most functional domains and overall poor prognosis. Non-targeted treatments for MPN disorders have been previously shown to provide little symptomatic relief for MPN pain. To date, little is known about patient viewpoints on MPN pain, its relationship to other chronic pain syndromes and the impact of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain therapies. In this study, we performed an international survey of MPN patients to better understand the prevalence and management of MPN pain. Methods: This study was performed by the MPN Quality of Life Study Group. A survey was designed by a team of MPN investigators experienced with MPN symptomatology. Survey content included the Barriers Questionnaire II (BQII), a 27-item survey validated to assess patient belief barriers to optimal management of cancer pain measured on a 0 (do not agree at all) to 5 (agree very much) scale (Pain. 2002 Oct;99(3):385-96.). Patients also completed the MPN-10, a 10-item survey of MPN symptoms completed on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale (Blood. 2011 Jul 14;118(2):401-8). The survey was posted on high-traffic MPN-related webpages focused on patient education and advocacy (MPN Forum, MPN Net, MPN Research Foundation, MPN Voice) for a total of 28 days. Survey questions evaluated patient demographics, pain histories, current and prior treatment strategies, as well as satisfaction with and barriers to available treatment options. Results: Demographics A total of 502 MPN patients (MF 26.9%, PV 44.2%, ET 28.9%) completed the survey. Patients were of expected mean age (60.5 years) and primarily female (74.9%). Most were from the United States (66.7%) and primarily English speaking (92.2%). Patients described being diagnosed with their MPN 3 to 10 years (35.4%) or >10 years ago (30.8%). Splenic enlargement was vocalized by 36.5% of patients and few patients had had a known history of blood clots (25.4%), severe bleeding (13.3%), conversion to acute leukemia (0.4%) or prior bone marrow transplant (1.4%). Patients described a treatment history of a variety of MPN therapies including aspirin (82.7%), hydroxyurea (60.6%), phlebotomy (40.6%), ruxolitinib (25.9%), interferon (18.5%), anagrelide (17.3%), active clinical trial (5.0%) and radiation treatment (0.4%). Pain Severity, Prevalence and Treatments Among surveyed patients, the MPN-10 mean was 28.3. Mean individual symptom scores and prevalence were 3.1 and 65.6% for abdominal discomfort and 3.0 and 60.4% for bone pain, respectively indicating a low to moderate symptom burden. Most patients had no prior history of chronic pain prior to their MPN diagnosis (47.1%), with chronic abdominal pain and chronic bone/muscle pain noted prior to MPN development in 5.6% and 20.8% of patients, respectively. Most patients felt that their chronic pain has either stayed the same (26.2%), worsened (28.3%) or significantly worsened (14.5%) since their MPN diagnosis. Many patients found pharmacologic and non-pharmacological therapies efficacious for individual pain symptoms, and 42.1% described regularly taking medication to control their pain (Table 1). Barriers to Pain Management Overall, 42.3% of MPN patients reported being unsatisfied with their current pain management plan. Despite this, only 43.5% of patients stated that their MPN providers discussed pain during office visits. Palliative Care (3.1%) and Pain Management (7.3%) were infrequently engaged. On the BQII, patients described being confident that cancer can cause pain (mean 4.2, SD 1.1) but did not necessarily expect to have pain following their MPN diagnosis (mean 2.2, SD 1.8). Conclusion Chronic pain (abdominal, bone) is a prevalent and undermanaged feature of MPN disorders. Chronic non-MPN pain is further complicated by the development of the disorder. Many MPN patients lack understanding on its prevalence and furthermore feel ill-equipped to manage it. Patients have, however, found symptomatic benefit from various pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities that require further exploration. Results from this study suggest MPN patients should be assessed regularly for pain and offered early referral to specialized services for evaluation, source identification and treatment. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Scherber: Incyte: Consultancy; Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Mesa:Ariad: Consultancy; Galena: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria; Phytogine: Employment. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document