The impact of health literacy on health outcomes in individuals with chronic pain: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish if health literacy (HL) is linked to poorer outcomes and behaviours in patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Multidisciplinary out-patient pain clinics in three university teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: New patients (n=131) referred to the pain clinic with a history of chronic pain (>12 weeks). METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to chronic pain patients attending their first appointment. Those eligible for inclusion were newly referred patients who had pain lasting longer than three months. The questionnaire comprised the following sections: demographics, chronic pain status and disease-related knowledge, quality of life (SF-36), beliefs (Beliefs About Pain Control Questionnaire), and a validated HL tool (Newest Vital Sign). RESULTS: Of the 131 participants recruited, 54% had inadequate HL. The group was subsequently stratified according to HL level. In bivariate analysis, inadequate HL was associated with older age (p<0.001), being unemployed or retired (p=0.005), less education (p<0.001), lower income, increased comorbidities (p=0.038), being less likely to utilise allied health services (p=0.001), poorer disease-related knowledge (p=0.002), and poorer beliefs about pain (p<0.05). In multivariate analysis, disease-related knowledge (OR 2.5, 95%CI 1.0 to 6.3, p=0.05) and beliefs about pain (B=-2.3, S.E=0.9, p=0.01) remained independently associated with HL. CONCLUSION: Inadequate HL is prevalent in chronic pain patients, and may impact on the development of certain characteristics necessary for effective self-management.

"I've Actually Changed How I Live"-Patients' Long-Term Perceptions of a Cognitive Behavioral Pain Management Program.

Objective: To determine patients' perceptions regarding cognitive behavioral pain management programs, and to determine what, if any, strategies learned on the program patients continue to use long-term to manage their pain. Design: A qualitative, focus-group based study. Setting: An outpatient multidisciplinary pain management program in a university teaching hospital. Patients: Patients with chronic pain who had previously completed a 4-week cognitive behavioral pain management program (2001­2014). Methods: Sixteen patients attended one of four focus groups. A battery of semi-structured questions explored their perceptions of the cognitive behavioral program, and which strategies they found useful and continued to use long-term to manage their pain. Results: Six key themes emerged: 1) universal long-term positive feedback on the utility of the program; 2) the program facilitated long-term changes in daily life; 3) participants now considered themselves as the "new me"; 4) request for more updates on emerging new treatments/pain knowledge; 5) recognizing that the key to maximizing gain from the program was to be open, to listen, and accept; and 6) participants sharing pain management knowledge with others in pain. Conclusion: There was universal positive feedback for the pain management program. Despite the years since they participated in one, patients continue to use key strategies to effectively manage their pain (pacing, relaxation), embedding them in their daily lives to maximize their quality of life.

The Impact of a Cognitive Behavioral Pain Management Program on Sleep in Patients with Chronic Pain: Results of a Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a cognitive behavioral pain management program on sleep in patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized controlled pilot study with evaluations at baseline and 12 weeks. SETTING: Out-patient multidisciplinary cognitive behavioral pain management program in a university teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: Patients with chronic pain who fulfilled the criteria for participation in a cognitive behavioral pain management program. METHODS: Patients assigned to the intervention group (n = 24) completed a 4 week cognitive behavioral pain management program, and were compared with a waiting list control group (n = 22). Assessments for both groups occurred at baseline and two months post cognitive behavioral pain management program. Outcome measures included self-report (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) and objective (actigraphy) sleep measures, pain and quality of life measures. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable at baseline, and all had sleep disturbance. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index correlated with only two of the seven objective sleep measures (fragmentation index r = 0.34, P = 0.02, and sleep efficiency percentage r = -0.31, P = 0.04). There was a large treatment effect for cognitive behavioral pain management program group in mean number of wake bouts (d = 0.76), where a significant group*time interaction was also found (P = 0.016), showing that the CBT-PMP group improved significantly more than controls in this sleep variable. CONCLUSIONS: Patients attending a cognitive behavioral pain management program have high prevalence of sleep disturbance, and actigraphy technology was well tolerated by the patients. Preliminary analysis of the impact of a cognitive behavioral pain management program on sleep is promising, and warrants further investigation.

Comparison of a Stratified Group Intervention (STarT Back) With Usual Group Care in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A nonrandomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the effectiveness of group-based stratified care in primary care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Stratified care based on psychosocial screening (STarT Back) has demonstrated greater clinical and cost-effectiveness in patients with low back pain. However, low back pain interventions are often delivered in groups and evaluating this system of care in a group setting is important. METHODS: Patients were recruited from 60 general practices and linked physiotherapy services. A new group stratified intervention was compared with a historical nonstratified control group. Patients stratified as low, medium and high risk were offered risk-matched group care. Consenting participants completed self-report measures of functional disability (primary outcome measure), pain, psychological distress, and beliefs. The historical control received a generic group intervention. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: In total, 251 patients in the new stratified intervention and 332 in the historical control were included in the primary analysis at 12 weeks. The mean age of patients was 43 ±â€Š10.98 years. Overall adjusted mean changes in the RMDQ scores were higher in the stratified intervention than in the control arm at 12-week follow-up (P = 0.028). Exploring the risk groups, individually the high-risk stratified group, demonstrated better outcome over the controls (P = 0.031). The medium-risk stratified intervention demonstrated equally good outcomes (P = 0.125), and low-risk stratified patients, despite less intervention, did as well as the historical controls (P = 0.993). CONCLUSION: Stratified care delivered in a group setting demonstrated superior outcomes in the high-risk patients, and equally good outcomes for the medium and low-risk groups. This model, embedded in primary care, provides an early and effective model of chronic disease management and adds another dimension to the utility of the STarT Back system of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

The effectiveness of a stratified group intervention using the STarTBack screening tool in patients with LBP--a non randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is costly to society and improving patient outcomes is a priority. Stratifying LBP patients into more homogenous groups is advocated to improve patient outcome. The STarT Back tool, a prognostic screening tool has demonstrated efficacy and greater cost effectiveness in physiotherapy settings. The management of LBP patients in groups is common but to date the utility of the STarT Back tool in group settings has not been explored. The aim of this study is to determine if the implementation of 'stratified care' when delivered in a group setting will lead to significantly better physical and psychological outcomes and greater cost effectiveness in LBP patients compared to a bestcare historical control group. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a non randomised controlled trial. Low back pain patients recruited from the Waterford Primary Care area (population = 47,000) will be stratified into low, medium or high risk of persisting symptoms using the STarT Back Tool. Low risk patients will be offered a single one off education/exercise class offering positive messages on LBP management in line with recommended guidelines. Medium risk patients will be offered a 12 week group exercise/education intervention addressing their dominant physical obstacles to recovery. A 12 week group cognitive behavioural approach will be delivered to the high risk patients, characterised by the presence of high levels of psychosocial prognostic factors. These patients will be compared with a historical control group where therapists were blinded as to the risk stratification of patients and a generic group intervention was delivered to all patients, irrespective of their initial risk stratification. The primary outcome measure will be disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes will include back pain intensity (Visual Analogue Scale), distress (Distress and Risk Assessment Method), back beliefs (Back Beliefs Questionnaire), health status (Euroqol), global benefit (7 point likert scale), satisfaction (7 point likert scale), cost effectiveness and functional status. Outcome will be measured at baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months. DISCUSSION: This paper details the rationale, design, methods, planned analysis and operational aspects of a study examining the utility of the STarT Back Tool as a 'stratification tool for targeted treatment' in a group intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials: ACTRN12613000431729.

The impact on sleep of a multidisciplinary cognitive behavioural pain management programme: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Reduced sleep quality is a common complaint among patients with chronic pain, with 50-80% of patients reporting sleep disturbance. Improvements in pain and quality of life measures have been achieved using a multidisciplinary cognitive behavioural therapy pain management programme (CBT-PMP) that aims to recondition attitudes to pain, and improve patients' self-management of their condition. Despite its high prevalence in patients with chronic pain, there is very limited objective evidence for the effect of this intervention on sleep quality. The primary research objective is to investigate the short-term effect of a multidisciplinary CBT-PMP on subjective (measured by Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index) and objective sleep quality (measured by Actigraphy) in patients with chronic pain by comparison with a control group. The secondary objectives will investigate changes in function and mood, and then explore the relationship between objective and subjective sleep quality and physical and psychological outcome measures. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients who fulfil the inclusion criteria for attendance on the multidisciplinary CBT-PMP in the Adelaide and Meath Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin and are currently listed on the PMP waiting list will be invited to participate in this pilot study. Potential patients will be screened for sleep disturbance [determined by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)]. Those patients with a sleep disturbance (PSQI >5) will be assigned to either the intervention group (immediate treatment), or control group (deferred treatment, i.e. the PMP they are listed for is more than six months away) based on where they appear on the waiting list. Baseline measures of sleep, function, and mood will be obtained using a combination of self-report questionnaires (the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Short Form 36 health survey, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia), and functional outcome measures. Sleep will be measured for seven days using actigraphy (Actiwatch 7). These measures will be repeated after the four week multidisciplinary cognitive behavioural therapy pain management programme, and at a two month follow-up. The waiting list control group will be assessed at baseline, and two months later. Analysis for the primary outcome will include between group differences of subjective and objective sleep parameters from baseline to follow-up using Independent T-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests. The secondary outcomes establishing relationships between the sleep variables and physical and psychological outcome measures will be established using multiple linear regression models. DISCUSSION: This pilot study will evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary CBT-PMP on both subjective and objective measures of sleep in patients with chronic pain and provide guidance for a larger clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trial ISRCTN: ISRCTN74913595.

The association between chronic low back pain and sleep: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: chronic low back pain (CLBP) adversely affects many quality of life components, and is reported to impair sleep. The aim of this review was to determine the association between CLBP and sleep. METHODS: this review comprised 3 phases: an electronic database search (PubMed, Cinahl Plus, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Pedro, and Cochrane Library) identified potential articles; these were screened for inclusion criteria by 2 independent reviewers; extraction of data from accepted articles; and rating of internal validity by 2 independent reviewers and strength of the evidence using valid and reliable scales. RESULTS: the search generated 17 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria (quantitative n=14 and qualitative n=3). CLBP was found to relate to several dimensions of sleep including: sleep disturbance and duration (n=15), sleep affecting day-time function (n=5), sleep quality (n=4), sleep satisfaction and distress (n=4), sleep efficiency (n=4), ability to fall asleep (n=3), and activity during sleep (n=3). Consistent evidence found that CLBP was associated with greater sleep disturbance; reduced sleep duration and sleep quality; increased time taken to fall asleep; poor day-time function; and greater sleep dissatisfaction and distress. Inconsistent evidence was found that sleep efficiency and activity were adversely associated with CLBP. DISCUSSION: many dimensions of sleep are adversely associated with CLBP. Management strategies for CLBP need to address these to maximize quality of life in this patient cohort.