Behavioral Mechanisms That Mediate Mental and Physical Health Improvements in People With Chronic Pain Who Receive a Digital Health Intervention: Prospective Cohort Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence suggests that digital mental health intervention (Wysa for Chronic Pain) can improve mental and physical health in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and coexisting symptoms of depression or anxiety. However, the behavioral mechanisms through which this intervention acts are not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify behavioral mechanisms that may mediate changes in mental and physical health associated with use of Wysa for Chronic Pain during orthopedic management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. We hypothesized that improved behavioral activation, pain acceptance, and sleep quality mediate improvements in self-reported mental and physical health. METHODS: In this prospective cohort, pilot mediation analysis, adults with chronic (≥3 months) neck or back pain received the Wysa for Chronic Pain digital intervention, which uses a conversational agent and text-based access to human counselors to deliver cognitive behavioral therapy and related therapeutic content. Patient-reported outcomes and proposed mediators were collected at baseline and 1 month. The exposure of interest was participants' engagement (ie, total interactions) with the digital intervention. Proposed mediators were assessed using the Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale-Short Form, Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, and Athens Insomnia Scale. Outcomes included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety, Depression, Pain Interference, and Physical Function scores. A mediation analysis was conducted using the Baron and Kenny method, adjusting for age, sex, and baseline mediators and outcome values. P<.20 was considered significant for this pilot study. RESULTS: Among 30 patients (mean age 59, SD 14, years; 21 [70%] female), the mediation effect of behavioral activation on the relationship between increased intervention engagement and improved anxiety symptoms met predefined statistical significance thresholds (indirect effect -0.4, 80% CI -0.7 to -0.1; P=.13, 45% of the total effect). The direction of mediation effect was generally consistent with our hypothesis for all other proposed mediator or outcome relationships, as well. CONCLUSIONS: In a full-sized randomized controlled trial of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, behavioral activation, pain acceptance, and sleep quality may play an important role in mediating the relationship between use of a digital mental health intervention (Wysa for Chronic Pain) and improved mental and physical health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05194722; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05194722.

Multi-stakeholder perspectives regarding preferred modalities for mental health intervention delivered in the orthopedic clinic: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although depressive and anxious symptoms negatively impact musculoskeletal health and orthopedic outcomes, a gap remains in identifying modalities through which mental health intervention can realistically be delivered during orthopedic care. The purpose of this study was to understand orthopedic stakeholders' perceptions regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of digital, printed, and in-person intervention modalities to address mental health as part of orthopedic care. METHODS: This single-center, qualitative study was conducted within a tertiary care orthopedic department. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and May 2022. Two stakeholder groups were interviewed using a purposive sampling approach until thematic saturation was reached. The first group included adult orthopedic patients who presented for management of ≥ 3 months of neck or back pain. The second group included early, mid, and late career orthopedic clinicians and support staff members. Stakeholders' interview responses were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding approaches followed by thematic analysis. Patients also performed usability testing of one digital and one printed mental health intervention. RESULTS: Patients included 30 adults out of 85 approached (mean (SD) age 59 [14] years, 21 (70%) women, 12 (40%) non-White). Clinical team stakeholders included 22 orthopedic clinicians and support staff members out of 25 approached (11 (50%) women, 6 (27%) non-White). Clinical team members perceived a digital mental health intervention to be feasible and scalable to implement, and many patients appreciated that the digital modality offered privacy, immediate access to resources, and the ability to engage during non-business hours. However, stakeholders also expressed that a printed mental health resource is still necessary to meet the needs of patients who prefer and/or can only engage with tangible, rather than digital, mental health resources. Many clinical team members expressed skepticism regarding the current feasibility of scalably incorporating in-person support from a mental health specialist into orthopedic care. CONCLUSIONS: Although digital intervention offers implementation-related advantages over printed and in-person mental health interventions, a subset of often underserved patients will not currently be reached using exclusively digital intervention. Future research should work to identify combinations of effective mental health interventions that provide equitable access for orthopedic patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Multi-stakeholder perspectives regarding preferred modalities for mental health intervention delivered in the orthopedic clinic: A qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although depressive and anxious symptoms negatively impact musculoskeletal health and orthopedic outcomes, a gap remains in identifying modalities through which mental health intervention can realistically be delivered during orthopedic care. The purpose of this study was to understand orthopedic stakeholders' perspectives regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of digital, printed, and in-person intervention modalities to address mental health as part of orthopedic care. METHODS: This single-center, qualitative study was conducted within the orthopedic department of a tertiary care center. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and May 2022. Two stakeholder groups were interviewed using a purposive sampling approach until thematic saturation was reached. The first group included adult orthopedic patients who presented for management of ≥ 3 months of neck or back pain. The second group included early, mid, and late career orthopedic clinicians and support staff members. Stakeholders' interview responses were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding approaches followed by thematic analysis. Patients also performed usability testing of one digital and one printed mental health intervention. RESULTS: Patients included 30 adults out of 85 approached (mean (SD) age 59 (14) years, 21 (70%) women, 12 (40%) non-White). Clinical team stakeholders included 22 orthopedic clinicians and support staff members out of 25 approached (11 (50%) women, 6 (27%) non-White). Clinical team members perceived a digital mental health intervention to be feasible and scalable to implement, and many patients appreciated that the digital modality offered privacy, immediate access to resources, and the ability to engage during non-business hours. However, stakeholders also expressed that a printed mental health resource is still necessary to meet the needs of patients who prefer and/or can only engage with tangible, rather than digital, mental health resources. Many clinical team members expressed skepticism regarding the current feasibility of scalably incorporating in-person mental health support into orthopedic care. CONCLUSIONS: Although digital intervention offers implementation-related advantages over printed and in-person mental health interventions, a subset of often underserved patients will not currently be reached using exclusively digital intervention. Future research should work to identify combinations of effective mental health interventions that provide equitable access for orthopedic patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

What Are Orthopaedic Patients' and Clinical Team Members' Perspectives Regarding Whether and How to Address Mental Health in the Orthopaedic Care Setting? A Qualitative Investigation of Patients With Neck or Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Across virtually all orthopaedic subspecialties, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and unhelpful thinking are associated with worse patient-reported satisfaction with orthopaedic treatment and increased postoperative complications. In the orthopaedic community, there is growing interest in patients' mental health in the orthopaedic care setting, but addressing mental health is still not a focus of orthopaedic clinical training. There is a persistent awareness gap about how to address mental health in orthopaedic care in a manner that is simultaneously feasible in a busy orthopaedic practice and acceptable to patients who are presenting for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are orthopaedic patients' and clinical team members' current perceptions and motivators regarding addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? (2) What barriers do patients and clinicians face regarding addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? (3) What are facilitators for patients and clinicians related to addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? (4) What are practical, acceptable implementation strategies to facilitate addressing mental health as part of orthopaedic care? METHODS: This was a single-center, qualitative study conducted from January through May 2022 in the orthopaedic department of a large, urban, tertiary care academic medical center. Semistructured interviews were conducted with members of two stakeholder groups: orthopaedic patients and orthopaedic clinical team members. We interviewed 30 adult patients (of 85 patients who were eligible and approached) who had presented to our orthopaedic department for management of neck or back pain lasting for 3 or more months. By prescreening clinic schedules, patients were purposively sampled to include representatives from varied sociodemographic backgrounds and with a range of severity of self-reported symptoms of depression and anxiety (from none to severe on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression and Anxiety measures) (mean age 59 ± 14 years, 70% [21 of 30] women, 60% [18 of 30] White, median pain duration 3.3 [IQR 1.8 to 10] years). We also interviewed 22 orthopaedic clinicians and clinical support staff members (of 106 team members who were eligible and 25 who were approached). Team members were purposively sampled to include representatives from the full range of adult orthopaedic subspecialties and early-, mid-, and late-career physicians (11 of 22 were women, 16 of 22 were White, and 13 of 22 were orthopaedic surgeons). Interviews were conducted in person or via secure video conferencing by trained qualitative researchers. The interview guides were developed using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model of behavior change. Two study team members used the interview transcripts for coding and thematic analysis, and interviews with additional participants from each stakeholder group continued until two study team members independently determined that thematic saturation of the components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model had been reached. Each participant statement was coded as a perception, motivator, barrier, facilitator, or implementation strategy, and inductive coding was used to identify themes in each category. RESULTS: In contrast to the perceptions of some orthopaedic clinicians, most patients with orthopaedic conditions expressed they would like their mental well-being to be acknowledged, if not addressed, as part of a thoughtful orthopaedic care plan. Motivation to address mental health was expressed the most strongly among orthopaedic clinical team members who were aware of high-quality evidence that demonstrated a negative impact of symptoms of depression and anxiety on metrics for which they are publicly monitored or those who perceived that addressing patients' mental health would improve their own quality of life. Barriers described by patients with orthopaedic conditions that were related to addressing mental health in the context of orthopaedic care included clinical team members' use of select stigmatizing words and perceived lack of integration between responses to mental health screening measures and the rest of the orthopaedic care encounter. Orthopaedic clinical team members commonly cited the following barriers: lack of available mental health resources they can refer patients to, uncertainty regarding the appropriateness for them to discuss mental health, and time pressure and lack of expertise or comfort in discussing mental health. Facilitators identified by orthopaedic clinical teams and patients to address mental health in the context of orthopaedic care included the development of efficient, adaptable processes to deliver mental health interventions that preferably avoid wasted paper resources; initiation of mental health-related discussion by an orthopaedic clinical team member in a compassionate, relevant context after rapport with the patient has been established; and the availability of a variety of affordable, accessible mental health interventions to meet patients' varied needs and preferences. Practical implementation strategies identified as suitable in the orthopaedic setting to increase appropriate attention to patients' mental health included training orthopaedic clinical teams, establishing a department or institution "mental health champion," and integrating an automated screening question into clinical workflow to assess patients' interest in receiving mental health-related information. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic patients want their mental health to be acknowledged as part of a holistic orthopaedic care plan. Although organization-wide initiatives can address mental health systematically, a key facilitator to success is for orthopaedic clinicians to initiate compassionate, even if brief, conversations with their patients regarding the interconnectedness of mental health and musculoskeletal health. Given the unique challenges to addressing mental health in the orthopaedic care setting, additional research should consider use of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to identify effective methods of addressing mental health that are feasible and appropriate for this clinical setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Orthopaedic clinicians who have had negative experiences attempting to address mental health with their patients should be encouraged to keep trying. Our results suggest they should feel empowered that most patients want to address mental health in the orthopaedic care setting, and even brief conversations using nonstigmatizing language can be a valuable component of an orthopaedic treatment plan.

A Digital Mental Health Intervention in an Orthopedic Setting for Patients With Symptoms of Depression and/or Anxiety: Feasibility Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of depression and anxiety commonly coexist with chronic musculoskeletal pain, and when this occurs, standard orthopedic treatment is less effective. However, mental health intervention is not yet a routine part of standard orthopedic treatment, in part because of access-related barriers. Digital mental health intervention is a potential scalable resource that could be feasibly incorporated into orthopedic care. OBJECTIVE: This study's primary purpose was to assess the feasibility of introducing a digital mental health intervention (Wysa) in an outpatient orthopedic setting to patients with coexisting symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. The secondary purpose was to perform a preliminary effectiveness analysis of the intervention. METHODS: In this single-arm, prospective cohort study, participants included adult patients (18 years and older) who presented to a nonsurgical orthopedic specialist at a single tertiary care academic center for evaluation of a musculoskeletal condition and who self-reported symptoms of depression and/or anxiety (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Depression and/or Anxiety score ≥55). Face-to-face enrollment was performed by a research coordinator immediately after the participant's encounter with an orthopedic clinician. Participants were provided 2 months of access to a mobile app called Wysa, which is an established, multicomponent digital mental health intervention that uses chatbot technology and text-based access to human counselors to deliver cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness training, and sleep tools, among other features. For this study, Wysa access also included novel, behavioral activation-based features specifically developed for users with chronic pain. Primary feasibility outcomes included the study recruitment rate, retention rate, and engagement rate with Wysa (defined as engagement with a therapeutic Wysa tool at least once during the study period). Secondary effectiveness outcomes were between-group differences in mean longitudinal PROMIS mental and physical health score changes at 2-month follow-up between high and low Wysa users, defined by a median split. RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 29.3% (61/208), retention rate was 84% (51/61), and engagement rate was 72% (44/61). Compared to low users, high users reported greater improvement in PROMIS Anxiety scores (between-group difference -4.2 points, 95% CI -8.1 to -0.2; P=.04) at the 2-month follow-up. Between-group differences in PROMIS Depression (-3.2 points, 95% CI -7.5 to 1.2; P=.15) and Pain Interference scores (-2.3 points, 95% CI -6.3 to 1.7; P=.26) favored high users but did not meet statistical significance. Improvements in PROMIS Physical Function scores were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of a digital mental health intervention within the context of orthopedic care is feasible and has the potential to improve mental health and pain-related impairment to a clinically meaningful degree. Participants' engagement rates exceeded industry standards, and additional opportunities to improve recruitment and retention were identified. Further pilot study followed by a definitive, randomized controlled trial is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04640090; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04640090.

Impact of coexistent lumbar spine disorders on clinical outcomes and physician charges associated with total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite the common prevalence of lumbar spine and degenerative hip disorders, there are few descriptions of patients with coexisting hip disorders and lumbar spine disorders (LSDs). The independent economic burden of each disorder is substantial, but the financial burden when the disorders are coexisting is unknown. PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of coexisting hip disorders and LSDs in a large cohort of patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) as well as the impact on pain and functional THA outcomes and physician charges. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective study performed at a tertiary university. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three thousand two hundred six patients underwent total hip replacement from 1996 to 2008. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-report measures: visual analog scale. Functional measures: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) hip questionnaire. Economic impact measures: physician medical charges. METHODS: International Classification of Diseases, Version 9, billing codes related to LSDs were cross-referenced with the 3,206 patients who had undergone a THA to determine which patients were also evaluated by a spine specialist. Demographic, hip clinical outcomes, and physician charges for patients with THA alone (THA alone) were compared with patients treated with THA and diagnosed with an LSD (THA+LSD). RESULTS: Of 3,206 patients who underwent THA, 566 (18%) were also evaluated by a spine specialist. Of those with an LSD, 334 (59%) were women with an older average age (64.5 ± 13.3 years) compared with patients treated with THA alone (51%, 58.5 ± 15.5 years, p = .0001). Patients in the THA alone group as compared with the THA+LSD group had greater improvement in the mHHS (p=.0001), UCLA score (p=.0001), and pain (p=.0001). Patients in the THA+LSD group incurred on average $2,668 more in charges per episode of care as compared with patients in the THA alone group (p<.001). Patients in the THA+LSD group had more days per episode of care (p=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing THA alone had greater improvement in function and pain relief with fewer medical charges as compared with patients undergoing a THA and treatment for an LSD. The prevalence of coexisting hip disorders and spine disorders is likely higher than currently documented. Further study is needed to improve therapeutic recommendations and determine the potential for reduction in medical expenses associated with concurrent treatment of hip OA and LSDs.