Characterizing modifications to a comparative effectiveness research study: the OPTIMIZE trial-using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Interventions (FRAME).

BACKGROUND: The OPTIMIZE trial is a multi-site, comparative effectiveness research (CER) study that uses a Sequential Multiple Assessment Randomized Trial (SMART) designed to examine the effectiveness of complex health interventions (cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, and mindfulness) for adults with chronic low back pain. Modifications are anticipated when implementing complex interventions in CER. Disruptions due to COVID have created unanticipated challenges also requiring modifications. Recent methodologic standards for CER studies emphasize that fully characterizing modifications made is necessary to interpret and implement trial results. The purpose of this paper is to outline the modifications made to the OPTIMIZE trial using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-Based Interventions (FRAME) to characterize modifications to the OPTIMIZE trial in response to the COVID pandemic and other challenges encountered. METHODS: The FRAME outlines a strategy to identify and report modifications to evidence-based interventions or implementation strategies, whether planned or unplanned. We use the FRAME to characterize the process used to modify the aspects of the OPTIMIZE trial. Modifications were made to improve lower-than-anticipated rates of treatment initiation and COVID-related restrictions. Contextual modifications were made to permit telehealth delivery of treatments originally designed for in-person delivery. Training modifications were made with study personnel to provide more detailed information to potential participants, use motivational interviewing communication techniques to clarify potential participants' motivation and possible barriers to initiating treatment, and provide greater assistance with scheduling of assigned treatments. RESULTS: Modifications were developed with input from the trial's patient and stakeholder advisory panels. The goals of the modifications were to improve trial feasibility without compromising the interventions' core functions. Modifications were approved by the study funder and the trial steering committee. CONCLUSIONS: Full and transparent reporting of modifications to clinical trials, whether planned or unplanned, is critical for interpreting the trial's eventual results and considering future implementation efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03859713. Registered on March 1, 2019.

TIDieR-telehealth: precision in reporting of telehealth interventions used in clinical trials - unique considerations for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

BACKGROUND: Recent international health events have led to an increased proliferation of remotely delivered health interventions. Even with the pandemic seemingly coming under control, the experiences of the past year have fueled a growth in ideas and technology for increasing the scope of remote care delivery. Unfortunately, clinicians and health systems will have difficulty with the adoption and implementation of these interventions if ongoing and future clinical trials fail to report necessary details about execution, platforms, and infrastructure related to these interventions. The purpose was to develop guidance for reporting of telehealth interventions. METHODS: A working group from the US Pain Management Collaboratory developed guidance for complete reporting of telehealth interventions. The process went through 5-step process from conception to final checklist development with input for many stakeholders, to include all 11 primary investigators with trials in the Collaboratory. RESULTS: An extension focused on unique considerations relevant to telehealth interventions was developed for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. CONCLUSION: The Telehealth Intervention guideline encourages use of the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist as a valuable tool (TIDieR-Telehealth) to improve the quality of research through a reporting guide of relevant interventions that will help maximize reproducibility and implementation.

Perceptions of Telehealth Physical Therapy Among Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 prompted the rapid adoption of telehealth to provide physical therapy. Patients' perceptions about telehealth physical therapy are mostly unknown. This study describes perceptions of telehealth physical therapy among patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Methods: This study surveyed participants in an ongoing multisite clinical trial of nonpharmacological LBP treatments. Participants were asked about their willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy and with other providers and completed the PROMIS-29. Results: Surveys were received from 102 participants (mean age = 48.5 [standard deviation; SD = 11.6]). Thirty-six (35.3%) expressed willingness to receive telehealth physical therapy, 22 were neutral (21.6%), and 44 were unwilling (43.1%). The percentage expressing willingness for telehealth physical therapy was lower than it was for family medicine (p < 0.001) or mental health (p < 0.001). Older (p = 0.049) and Black participants (p = 0.01) more likely expressed willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy. Conclusion: Education and familiarity may help patients view telehealth physical therapy more favorably. Clinical Trial Registration (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03859713).

Optimizing the Impact of Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Veteran and Military Populations: Lessons From the Pain Management Collaboratory.

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are well-suited to address unmet healthcare needs, such as those arising from the dual public health crises of chronic pain and opioid misuse, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These overlapping epidemics have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and PCTs can be used to investigate the effectiveness of integrated therapies that are currently available but underused. Yet individual pragmatic studies can be limited in their reach because of existing structural and cultural barriers to dissemination and implementation. The National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and Department of Veterans Affairs formed an interagency research partnership, the Pain Management Collaboratory. The partnership combines pragmatic trial design with collaborative tools and relationship building within a large network to advance the science and impact of nonpharmacological approaches and integrated models of care for the management of pain and common co-occurring conditions. The Pain Management Collaboratory team supports 11 large-scale, multisite PCTs in veteran and military health systems with a focus on team science with the shared aim that the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts." Herein, we describe this integrated approach and lessons learned, including incentivizing all parties; proactively offering frequent opportunities for problem-solving; engaging stakeholders during all stages of research; and navigating competing research priorities. We also articulate several specific strategies and their practical implications for advancing pain management in active clinical, "real-world," settings.

Female and Younger Orthopaedic Sport Medicine Patients Are More Negatively Affected by COVID-19-Related Health Care Closures.

PURPOSE: To determine whether sex or age influence whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) health care closures affect the health, recovery, and access to resources of preoperative and postoperative orthopaedic sports medicine patients. METHODS: Electronic questionnaires assessing physical and emotional health, the value of virtual care, and access to resources were distributed to patients with postponed (PP) orthopaedic restorative surgeries and those within 3 months' postoperative (PO), at the time of the COVID-19 health care closures. The EQ-5D-3L was included as a standardized measure of general health. Chi-square tests compared responses between sexes and age groups. Unpaired t-tests compared the EQ visual analog scale (VAS) by sex, and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the EQ VAS by age. RESULTS: Females in the PO group were more likely to report that their recovery was delayed (49.5% vs 36%) and that closures had negatively affected their recovery (P = .013). Females in the PP group reported more symptoms of pain/discomfort on the EQ-5D-3L (P = .023). In the PP group, patients aged 25 to 44 years were most likely to identify pain as a concern (P = .54). In the PO group, patients younger than 45 years reported a significantly lower mean EQ VAS health state (P = .017). For the final analysis, there were 115 subjects in the PP group and 198 in the PO group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated significant sex- and age-specific differences in health and recovery among orthopaedic sports medicine patients as a result of the COVID-19 health care closures. Females reported significantly more pain, anxiety, and delay in their rehabilitation, while younger patients reported greater negative impacts and worse overall health state.

The Relationship Between Neighborhood Deprivation and Perceived Changes for Pain-Related Experiences Among US Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic could disproportionately affect the health of vulnerable populations, including patients experiencing persistent health conditions (i.e., chronic pain), along with populations living within deprived, lower socioeconomic areas. The current cross-sectional study characterized relationships between neighborhood deprivation and perceived changes in pain-related experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (early-September to mid-October 2020) for adult patients (N = 97) with nonspecific chronic low back pain. METHODS: We collected self-report perceived experiences from participants enrolled in an ongoing pragmatic randomized trial across medical centers within the Salt Lake City, Utah and Baltimore, Maryland metropolitans. The Area Deprivation Index (composite of 17 US Census deprivation metrics) reflected neighborhood deprivation based on participants' zip codes. RESULTS: Although those living in the neighborhoods with greater deprivation endorsed significantly poorer physical (pain severity, pain interference, physical functioning), mental (depression, anxiety), and social health during the pandemic, there were no significant differences for perceived changes in pain-related experiences (pain severity, pain interference, sleep quality) between levels of neighborhood deprivation since the onset of the pandemic. However, those in neighborhoods with greater deprivation endorsed disproportionately worse perceived changes in pain coping, social support, and mood since the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings offer evidence that changes in pain coping during the pandemic may be disproportionately worse for those living in deprived areas. Considering poorer pain coping may contribute to long-term consequences, the current findings suggest the need for further attention and intervention to reduce the negative effect of the pandemic for such vulnerable populations.