ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: During the current COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare has been transformed by the rapid switch from in person care to use of remote consulting, including video conferencing technology. Whilst much has been published on one-to-one video consultations, little literature exists on use of this technology to facilitate group interventions. Group pain management programmes are a core treatment provided by many pain services. This rapid review aimed to identify the extent of use of video conferencing technology for delivery of group pain management programmes and provide an overview of its use. METHODS: A rapid review of the literature published up to April 2020 (PubMed, PsycINFO and PEDro) was performed. The search string consisted of three domains: pain/CP (MeSH term) AND Peer group[MeSH] AND Videoconferencing[MeSH]/Telemedicine[MeSH]/Remote Consultation[MeSH]. The studies were of poor methodological quality and study design, and interventions and chronic pain conditions were varied. RESULTS: Literature searching yielded three eligible papers for this review. All studies had low methodological quality and risk of bias. Heterogeneity and variability in outcome reporting did not allow any pooling of data. The results demonstrated that videoconferencing for delivery of group programmes is possible, yet there is little extant literature on how to develop, deliver and measure outcomes of such programmes. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that there is little evidence to support or guide the use of synchronous videoconferencing to deliver pain management programmes. We present issues to consider, informed by this review and our experience, when implementing video conferencing. Study quality of existing work is variable, and extensive future research is necessary.