Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization versus myofascial release therapy in treatment of chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) versus myofascial release therapy (MRT) on college students with chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP). METHODS: Thirty-three college students with a mean age of 21.33 ± 0.98 involved in distance learning due to the Corona Virus 2019 (COVID-19) restriction were randomized to receive either IASTM on the upper trapezius and levator scapulae muscles or MRT. Researchers measured their pain with a visual analog scale (VAS), function with neck disability index (NDI), and pain pressure threshold (PPT) with a pressure algometer. The subjects received eight therapy sessions over four weeks and outcome measures were assessed pre and post-intervention. The study was registered as a clinical trial on clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05213871). RESULT: Unpaired t-test showed no statistical significance between the two groups post-intervention regarding improvement in pain, function, and PPT (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study showed insignificant differences between groups. However, we did not use a control group, indicating that the improvement in outcomes may not have been caused by the intervention. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental two groups pre-posttest clinical trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2b.

The comparison between the effects of pain education interventions with online and face-to-face exercise and the control group received biomedical education + standardized physical therapy in patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain during COVID-19: protocol for a parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Various psychological issues and serious health concerns during the imposed lockdown by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have induced many changes in the treatment of patients. More effective self-management strategies through tele-rehabilitation are suggested to be applied for patients with chronic neck pain to reduce referrals to health cares and disability support through COVID-19. Also, the pain neuroscience education (PNE) approach is an educational method used by health professionals to assist patients in understanding the biology, physiology, and psychosocial factors affecting their pain experience and aligning with the cognitions and beliefs associated with pain and recurrent disability. PNE combined with tele-rehabilitation could be a new solution to encourage patients to manage their condition by themselves and increase the continuity of practice instead of face-to-face sessions. OBJECTIVE: This randomized control trial (RCT) aims to investigate the effects of PNE with online and face-to-face exercise interventions, and the control group received biomedical education + standardized physical therapy on neck pain and disability, psychological factors, and function in non-traumatic chronic neck pain. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with non-traumatic chronic neck pain (patient-centered care and active involvement of patients and the public) will be recruited via flyers displayed in hospitals and universities to participate in an RCT with two experimental and one control group designed to investigate the effects of PNE with online and face-to-face exercise interventions, and the control group received biomedical education + standardized physical therapy on neck pain and disability, psychological factors, and function in non-traumatic chronic neck pain. The outcomes will be measured at baseline, after PNE, and after 3 months of an exercise intervention. All outcomes are presented as mean ± SD, and statistical significance was set at α level of < 0.05. The normal distribution of the variables was verified by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, following a descriptive analysis. DISCUSSION: It seems that PNE plus online and face-to-face exercise interventions are appropriate educational models for the treatment of patients with neck pain during COVID-19. Also, online training seems to encourage patients to continue their treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials IRCT20150503022068N5. Registered on 09 September 2021.

Does m-health-based exercise (guidance plus education) improve efficacy in patients with chronic low-back pain? A preliminary report on the intervention's significance.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of mobile health (m-health) has rapidly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is still a lack of relevant clinical data pertaining to chronic low-back pain (CLBP) management. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of m-health-based exercise (via guidance plus education) versus exercise (via guidance) during CLBP management. METHODS: Participants (n = 40) were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. The intervention group received m-health-based exercise (via guidance plus education), whereas the control group received m-health-based exercise (via guidance). The exercise prescription video and educational content were sent to participants by the application (app), Ding Talk. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test the baseline's intervention effects, 6-week follow-up, and 18-week follow-up. We selected function (Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire) and pain intensity (current, mean, and most severe Numeric Rating Scale in the last 2 weeks) as the primary outcomes, changes of negative emotion (depression, anxious), and quality of life as the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Time's significant effect was found in pain, function, and health-related quality of life in both groups, but time did not show significant interaction effects. Participants were able to use m-based education with their anxiety and depression after treatment, but the relief only lasted until week 6. No differences were found on the aspect of mental health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest that m-health-based exercise (via guidance) may be a convenient and effective method to treat CLBP. However, additional health education didn't help more. More rigorous controlled trials are needed to improve the therapeutic effect in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry Number ChiCTR2000041459 . Registered on December 26, 2020.

"So, you must understand that that group changed everything": perspectives on a telehealth group intervention for individuals with chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Education Empowerment Programme (PEEP) is an interdisciplinary group intervention for people living with chronic pain. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown and restrictions on in-person group-based health care delivery in South Africa, PEEP was modified to a telehealth electronic format (ePEEP) and offered to patients on a waiting list at two interdisciplinary chronic pain clinics in Cape Town, South Africa. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and acceptability of ePEEP through the perspectives of individuals with chronic pain who participated in ePEEP.  METHODS: A qualitative, exploratory descriptive study was conducted. One month after completion of the 6-week ePEEP programme, individuals who participated, were recruited for the study. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. Data analysis followed an iterative process of inductive content analysis.  RESULTS: Six individuals, all women, consented and participated in the study. Three main themes emerged from the data. Theme one focussed on how ePEEP initiated a journey of personal development and discovery within the participants. In theme two, participants reflected on the importance and value of building peer and therapeutic relationships as part of ePEEP. In theme 3, participants shared that the online learning environment had features which influenced learning about pain in different ways. CONCLUSION: ePEEP was found to be acceptable, feasible and valuable for the participants. ePEEP facilitated self-discovery, empowerment, relationship building and transformation in the participants, through experiential learning. Although barriers and facilitators to learning were present, both enhanced the learning experience. The positive reception of this telehealth initiative indicates potential for enhanced access to chronic pain management services in the South African setting.

A Delphi Consensus Approach for the Management of Chronic Pain during and after the COVID-19 Era.

Due to a lack of published evidence on the topic, a modified Delphi approach was used to develop recommendations useful for chronic pain management during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Focusing on the available literature and personal clinical expertise, an Italian board of nine professionals from different disciplines identified four main topics: prevention of chronic pain, treatment of chronic pain, consequences of inadequate treatment, and perspectives. They elaborated a semi-structured questionnaire. A multidisciplinary panel of experts in the field of pain management was requested to comment on the statements. Based on the answers provided, a structured questionnaire was prepared (Round 1). It included 21 statements divided into three categories (organizational issues; diagnosis and therapies; telemedicine and future perspectives). A five-point Likert scale was adopted. The threshold for consensus was set at a minimum of 70% of the number of respondents (level of agreement ≥ 4, Agree or Strongly Agree). A final questionnaire with rephrasing of the statements that did not reach the consensus threshold was elaborated (Round 2). A total of 29 clinicians were included in the panel. Twenty clinicians (69%) responded in both the first and second round. After two rounds, consensus (≥70%) was achieved in 20 out of 21 statements. The lack of consensus was recorded for the statement regarding the management of post-COVID pain (55%; Median 4; IQR 2.3). Another statement on telemedicine reached the threshold in the first round (70%), but the value was not confirmed in Round 2 (65%; Median 4; IQR 2). Most of the proposed items reached consensus, suggesting the need to make organizational changes, the structuring of careful diagnostic and therapeutic pathways, and the application of new technologies in pain medicine. Long-COVID-19 care is an issue that needs further research. Remote assistance for chronic pain must be regulated.

Rationale and study design of an early care, therapeutic education, and psychological intervention program for the management of post-intensive care syndrome and chronic pain after COVID-19 infection (PAIN-COVID): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are an especially susceptible population to develop post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) due to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Patients can suffer acute severe pain and may have long-term mental, cognitive, and functional health deterioration after discharge. However, few controlled trials are evaluating interventions for the prevention and treatment of PICS. The study hypothesis is that a specific care program based on early therapeutic education and psychological intervention improves the quality of life of patients at risk of developing PICS and chronic pain after COVID-19. The primary objective is to determine whether the program is superior to standard-of-care on health-related quality of life at 6 months after hospital discharge. The secondary objectives are to determine whether the intervention is superior to standard-of-care on health-related quality of life, incidence of chronic pain and degree of functional limitation, incidence of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress syndrome at 3 and 6 months after hospital discharge. METHODS: The PAINCOVID trial is a unicentric randomized, controlled, patient-blinded superiority trial with two parallel groups. The primary endpoint is the health-related quality of life at 6 months after hospital discharge, and randomization will be performed with a 1:1 allocation ratio. This paper details the methodology and statistical analysis plan of the trial and was submitted before outcome data were available. The estimated sample size is 84 patients, 42 for each arm. Assuming a lost to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 102 patients is necessary (51 for each arm). DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of an early care therapeutic education, and psychological intervention program for the management of PICS and chronic pain after COVID-19. The intervention will serve as proof of the need to implement early care programs at an early stage, having an incalculable impact given the current scenario of the pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is being conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration and has been approved by the authors' institutional review board Comité Ético de Investigación Clínica del Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (approval number: HCB/2020/0549) and was registered on May 9, 2020, at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04394169 ).

Accessing care in multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities continues to be a challenge in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities (MPTFs) are considered the optimal settings for the management of chronic pain (CP). This study aimed (1) to determine the distribution of MPTFs across Canada, (2) to document time to access and types of services, and (3) to compare the results to those obtained in 2005-2006. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used the same MPTF definition as in 2005-2006-that is, a clinic staffed with professionals from a minimum of three different disciplines (including at least one medical specialty) and whose services were integrated within the facility. A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify existing MPTFs across Canada. Administrative leads at each MPTF were invited to complete an online questionnaire regarding their facilities. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 104 MPTFs (response rate 79.4%). Few changes were observed in the distribution of MPTFs across Canada compared with 12 years ago. Most (91.3%) are concentrated in large urban cities. Prince Edward Island and the Territories still lack MPTFs. The number of pediatric-only MPTFs has nearly doubled but remains small (n=9). The median wait time for a first appointment in publicly funded MPTFs is about the same as 12 years ago (5.5 vs 6 months). Small but positive changes were also observed. CONCLUSION: Accessibility to public MPTFs continues to be limited in Canada, resulting in lengthy wait times for a first appointment. Community-based MPTFs and virtual care initiatives to distribute pain services into regional and remote communities are needed to provide patients with CP with optimal care.

Emergence From the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Care of Chronic Pain: Guidance for the Interventionalist.

BACKGROUND: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a significant disruption in the care of pain from chronic and subacute conditions. The impact of this cessation of pain treatment may have unintended consequences of increased pain, reduced function, increased reliance on opioid medications, and potential increased morbidity, due to the systemic impact of untreated disease burden. This may include decreased mobility, reduction in overall health status, and increase of opioid use with the associated risks. METHODS: The article is the study of the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) COVID-19 task force to evaluate the policies set forth by federal, state, and local agencies to reduce or eliminate elective procedures for those patients with pain from spine, nerve, and joint disease. The impact of these decisions, which were needed to reduce the spread of the pandemic, led to a delay in care for many patients. We hence review an emergence plan to reinitiate this pain-related care. The goal is to outline a path to work with federal, state, and local authorities to combat the spread of the pandemic and minimize the deleterious impact of pain and suffering on our chronic pain patients. RESULTS: The article sets forth a strategy for the interventional pain centers to reemerge from the current pandemic and to set a course for future events. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an overwhelming challenge to interventional pain physicians and their patients. In addition to urgent actions needed for disease mitigation, the ASPN recommends a staged return to pain management professionals' workflow.