The patient acceptability of a remotely delivered pain management programme for people with persistent musculoskeletal pain: A qualitative evaluation.

Introduction: Remotely delivered pain management programmes have been offered in place of in-person programmes by many chronic pain services since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a lack of evidence regarding the acceptability of these programmes. In this evaluation, we have explored patients' acceptability of a remotely delivered pain management programme for patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain. Methods: Qualitative data were collected using focus groups with participants who had previously attended the remote pain management programme. Data were analysed using abductive analysis. Results: Three focus groups were conducted with a total of 13 participants. The programmme was either entirely acceptable, had some acceptable components or was not acceptable to patients. Factors leading to the programme being acceptable include learning to manage pain from home, receiving high quality care from home, enhancing the potential of rehabilitation using technology, enabling attendance on a pain management programme from home, overcoming social distancing requirements of COVID-19 using technology, and virtual peer support. Factors leading to the programme not being acceptable include having an inappropriate home environment for virtual therapy, communication challenges with virtual therapy, technological issues and concerns regarding the quality of care. Conclusions: There is a spectrum of acceptability with respect to the remote programme. The factors that influence this are dynamic, individual and situational. Hybrid programmes have the potential to enhance access to pain management programmes and improve patient experience and programme outcomes in the future.

A qualitative investigation into the results of a discrete choice experiment and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for virtual consultations.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a qualitative investigation on a subset of participants from a previously completed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to understand why factors identified from the DCE are important, how they influenced preference for virtual consultations (VC) and how COVID-19 has influenced preference for VC. METHODS: A quota sample was recruited from participants who participated in our DCE. We specifically targeted participants who were strongly in favour of face-to-face consultations (F2F - defined as choosing all or mostly F2F in the DCE) or strongly in favour of virtual consultations (VC - defined as choosing all or mostly VC consultations in the DCE) to elicit a range of views. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVIVO software. A directed content analysis of transcripts was undertaken in accordance with a coding framework based on the results of the DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on preference. RESULTS: Eight F2F and 5 VC participants were included. Shorter appointments were less 'worth' travelling in for than a longer appointment and rush hour travel had an effect on whether travelling was acceptable, particularly when patients experienced pain as a result of extended journeys. Socioeconomic factors such as cost of travel, paid time off work, access to equipment and support in its use was important. Physical examinations were preferable in the clinic whereas talking therapies were acceptable over VC. Several participants commented on how VC interferes with the patient-clinician relationship. VC during COVID-19 has provided patients with the opportunity to access their care virtually without the need for travel. For some, this was extremely positive. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigated the results of a previously completed DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for VC. Theoretically informative insights were gained to explain the results of the DCE. The use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic provided opportunities to access care without the need for face-to-face social interactions. Many felt that VC would become more commonplace after the pandemic, whereas others were keen to return to F2F consultations as much as possible. This qualitative study provides additional context to the results of a previously completed DCE.

What is the content of virtually delivered pain management programmes for people with persistent musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Virtual consultations (VC) have been embraced by healthcare organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. VC allows continuation of patient care while adhering to government advised restrictions and social distancing measures. Multidisciplinary pain management programmes (PMPs) are a core element of many pain services and utilising virtual methods to deliver PMPs has allowed them to continue to provide care. This systematic review aimed to explore the content of existing virtually delivered PMPs and discuss if and how these findings can be used to guide clinical delivery. METHODS: Eligible studies included adults (aged ⩾18 years) with persistent musculoskeletal pain and any virtually delivered intervention that was described as a PMP or that had components of PMPs. Databases were searched from inception until July 2020. We performed a content analysis comparing existing interventions with established evidence-based clinical guidelines published by the British Pain Society (BPS). Intervention reporting quality was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist: an established checklist developed to improve the completeness of the reporting of interventions. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. One intervention included six of the seven components recommended by the BPS; none included all seven. 'Skills training and activity management' was present in all eight interventions; 'education' and 'cognitive therapy methods' were present in six interventions; 'graded activation' and 'methods to enhance acceptance, mindfulness and psychological flexibility' were present in four interventions; 'physical exercise' was present in two interventions and 'graded exposure' was present in one intervention. None of the studies described all 12 items of the TIDieR checklist adequately enough for replication. CONCLUSION: Published virtual PMPs partially meet established clinical guidelines. Future virtual PMPs should be based on evidence-based clinical guidelines, and more research is needed to explore the effectiveness of virtually delivered PMPs and each recommended component.

A mixed-methods survey to explore issues with virtual consultations for musculoskeletal care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To explore orthopaedic and musculoskeletal clinicians' views and experiences of legal, safety, safeguarding and security issues regarding the use of virtual consultations (VC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A secondary objective was to suggest ways to overcome these issues. METHODS: A mixed method cross-sectional survey was conducted, seeking the views and experiences of orthopaedic and musculoskeletal medically qualified and Allied Health Professionals in the United Kingdom. Descriptive statistical analysis was employed for quantitative data and a qualitative content analysis undertaken for qualitative data. Findings were presented in accordance with the four key issues. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety professionals (206 physiotherapists, 78 medically qualified professionals, 6 'other' therapists) participated in the survey. Of the 290 participants, 260 (90%) were not using VC prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 248 respondents (86%) were unsure whether their professional indemnity insurance covered VC, 136 (47%) had considered how they would handle an issue of safeguarding whilst the remainder had not, 126 (43%) had considered what they would do if, during a virtual consultation, a patient suffered an injury (e.g. bang on their head) or a fall (e.g. mechanical or a medical event like syncope) and 158 (54%) reported they felt the current technological solutions are secure in terms of patient data. Qualitative data provided additional context to support the quantitative findings such as validity of indemnification, accuracy of diagnosis and consent using VC, safeguarding issues; and security and sharing of data. Potential changes to practice have been proposed to address these issues. CONCLUSIONS: VC have been rapidly deployed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic often without clear guidance or consensus on many important issues. This study identified legal, safeguarding, safety and security issues. There is an urgent need to address these and develop local and national guidance and frameworks to facilitate ongoing safe virtual orthopaedic practice beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Factors that influence patient preferences for virtual consultations in an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, characterise and explain factors that influence patient preferences, from the perspective of patients and clinicians, for virtual consultations in an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and abductive analysis. SETTING: A physiotherapy and occupational therapy department situated within a tertiary orthopaedic centre in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were receiving orthopaedic rehabilitation for a musculoskeletal problem. Occupational therapists, physiotherapists or therapy technicians involved in the delivery of orthopaedic rehabilitation for patients with a musculoskeletal problem. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients and 22 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The average interview length was 48 minutes. Four major factors were found to influence preference: the situation of care (the ways that patients understand and explain their clinical status, their treatment requirements and the care pathway), the expectations of care (influenced by a patients desire for contact, psychological status, previous care and perceived requirements), the demands on the patient (due to each patients respective social situation and the consequences of choice) and the capacity to allocate resources to care (these include financial, infrastructural, social and healthcare resources). CONCLUSION: This study has identified key factors that appear to influence patient preference for virtual consultations in orthopaedic rehabilitation. A conceptual model of these factors, derived from empirical data, has been developed highlighting how they combine and compete. A series of questions, based on these factors, have been developed to support identification of preferences in a clinical setting.