A service evaluation to examine the effectiveness of chronic pain management programmes delivered using video conferencing technology compared to in-person.

Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic required rapid substitution of in-person Pain Management Programmes (PMP) delivery with delivery via videoconferencing technologies (VCT). No prior published VCT-PMP effectiveness findings were found, so an evaluation was conducted to explore effectiveness of this method and to compare psychometric outcomes with pre-pandemic, in-person- PMPs, delivered in routine clinical settings. Methods: Participants were routinely attending PMPs. A consecutive series of six in-person-PMPs (n = 61) immediately prior to the pandemic were compared with the first series of six VCT-PMPs (n = 64) delivered in the same services. A within-subjects comparison of clinical outcomes (pre-post for VCT-PMP and in-person PMP) and a between-subjects comparison of delivery type was conducted (two-way mixed ANOVA). Reliable change indices examined reliable improvements and deteriorations by delivery type. Results: Both PMP delivery format groups made significant improvements in anxiety, depression, pain self-efficacy, chronic pain acceptance and pain catastrophising. No significant difference was found between VCT-PMP and in-person-PMP on each of the measures. Reliable change indices indicated similar levels of improvement and deterioration with each delivery format with improvements far outweighing deteriorations. Attrition was greater in the VCT format (33%) versus in-person-PMP (18%). Conclusion: This study indicates that meaningful change as measured by standard psychometric questionnaires can occur in PMPs delivered via VCT and appear broadly equivalent to that achieved through in-person delivery. Physical performance outcomes such as quality and amount of movement were not measured or explored.

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.

COVID-19 persistente y dolor crónico. ¿Estamos preparados? Presentación de tres casos clínicos y revisión de la literatura

Long COVID is a term that describes a group of multiorganic symptoms that affect patients who have suffered from COVID-19 and who remain symptomatic for a sustained period of time after the acute phase of the disease. Amongst those symptoms, pain is one of the most frequently reported, shaping into different specific syndromes such as persistent thoracic pain, generalized pain, arthralgia, myalgia and cephalalgia. Multiple mechanisms can explain the onset and perpetuation of chronic pain in these patients. It is known that SARS-CoV-2 is a neurotropic virus that can alter the somatosensory nervous system and which can also cause an intense autoimmune response with effects on multiple organs and systems. We present three clinical cases of long COVID where pain was the main symptom altogether with anxiety, depression, insomnia, catastrophic thoughts related to pain, cognitive impairment and post-traumatic stress disorder. These all show the existing complexity in the management of this new-found entity. Given the extensive number of SARS-CoV-2 infections reported globally, chronic pain in relation to long COVID can become a public health issue. Therefore, it is necessary to make it visible and to establish strategies to prevent it and confront it. © 2021 Publicaciones Permanyer. All rights reserved.

A Targeted Approach to Post-Mastectomy Pain and Persistent Pain following Breast Cancer Treatment.

Persistent pain following treatment for breast cancer is common and often imprecisely labeled as post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS). PMPS is a disorder with multiple potential underlying causes including intercostobrachial nerve injury, intercostal neuromas, phantom breast pain, and pectoralis minor syndrome. Adding further complexity to the issue are various musculoskeletal pain syndromes including cervical radiculopathy, shoulder impingement syndrome, frozen shoulder, and myofascial pain that may occur concurrently and at times overlap with PMPS. These overlapping pain syndromes may be difficult to separate from one another, but precise diagnosis is essential, as treatment for each pain generator may be distinct. The purpose of this review is to clearly outline different pain sources based on anatomic location that commonly occur following treatment for breast cancer, and to provide tailored and evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of each disorder.

Adverse childhood experience and adult persistent pain and disability: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of research highlights the pervasive harms of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health throughout the life-course. However, findings from prior reviews and recent longitudinal studies investigating the association between types of ACEs and persistent pain have yielded inconsistent findings in the strength and direction of associations. The purpose of this review is to appraise and summarize evidence on the relationship between ACEs and persistent pain and disability outcomes in adulthood. The specific aims are (1) to determine whether there is a relationship between exposure to ACE and persistent pain and disability in adults and (2) to determine whether unique and cumulative ACEs exposures (number and type) increase the risk of developing persistent pain and disability in adulthood. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies will be conducted. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PECOS approach: population, adults with persistent (≥ 3 months) musculoskeletal and somatoform painful disorders exposed to single or cumulative direct ACEs alone (i.e., physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect) or in combination to indirect types of ACE (e.g., parental death, exposure to domestic violence) in the first 18 years of life; comparators, unexposed individuals; outcomes, measurements for persistent pain (≥ 3 months) and disability using discrete and/or continuous measures; and settings, general population, primary care. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and nine other pertinent databases was conducted from inception to 29 August 2019 using a combination of key words and MeSh terms (the search will be updated prior to conducting the analyses). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen records and full text articles, and a third reviewer will be consulted in cases of disagreement. Data will be extracted using Endnote and Covidence and a meta-analysis will be conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.3. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists will be used to assess the quality of the included studies. If heterogeneity is high, the findings will be presented in narrative form. DISCUSSION: The present review will help consolidate knowledge on persistent pain and disability by evaluating whether frequency and type of adverse childhood experiences produces the most harm. Findings may help inform practitioners and policy-makers who endeavor to prevent and/or mitigate the consequences of ACEs and promote healthy development and well-being of children, youth, and families. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020150230.

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.

Waiting in Pain II: An Updated Review of the Provision of Persistent Pain Services in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on Australian persistent pain services (number, structure, funding, wait times, activity). METHODS: An updated national search was conducted. Of those identified, 74 persistent pain services provided detailed responses between July 2016 and February 2018 (64 adult, seven pediatric, two pelvic pain, and one cancer pain). A similar structure to the original Waiting in Pain (WIP) survey was used, and participants chose online or telephone completion. RESULTS: Pediatric pain services had more than doubled but remained limited. Adult services had also increased, with a concurrent decrease in median wait times and an increase in the number of new referrals seen each year. Despite this, some lengthy wait times (≥3 years) persisted. Wait times were longest at clinics using public or combined funding models and offering pain management group programs (PMGPs). Although clinical activity had increased, medical staffing had not, suggesting that clinics were operating differently. Privately funded clinics performed more procedures than publicly funded services. Use of PMGPs had increased, but program structure remained diverse. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist pain services have expanded since the original WIP survey, facilitating treatment access for many. However, wait time range suggested that the most disadvantaged individuals still experienced the longest wait times, often far exceeding the recommended 6-month maximum wait. More needs to be done. Numerous developments (e.g., National Strategic Action Plan for Pain Management, health system changes as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic) will continue to influence the delivery of pain services in Australia, and repeated analysis of service structures and wait times will optimize our health system response to the management of this condition.