Acceptance, Satisfaction, and Preference With Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2021-2022: Survey Among Patients With Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many health care providers to make changes in their treatment, with telemedicine being expanded on a large scale. An earlier study investigated the acceptance of telephone calls but did not record satisfaction with treatment or patients' preferences. This warranted a follow-up study to investigate acceptance, satisfaction, and preferences regarding telemedicine, comprising of phone consultations, among health care recipients. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to assess the acceptance and satisfaction of telemedicine during the subsequent months of 2021-2022, after the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland. Furthermore, we aimed to assess patients' preferences and whether these differed in patients who had already experienced telemedicine in the past, as well as correlations between acceptance and satisfaction, pain intensity, general condition, perception of telemedicine, and catastrophizing. Finally, we aimed to investigate whether more governmental restrictions were correlated with higher acceptance. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted between January 27, 2021, and February 4, 2022, enrolling patients undergoing outpatient pain therapy in a tertiary university clinic. We conducted a descriptive analysis of acceptance and satisfaction with telemedicine and investigated patients' preferences. Further, we conducted a descriptive and correlational analysis of the COVID-19 stringency index. Spearman correlation analysis and a chi-square test for categorical data were used with Cramer V statistic to assess effect sizes. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 60 patients. Telemedicine acceptance and satisfaction were high, with an average score of 7.6 (SD 3.3; on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale from 0=not at all to 10=completely), and 8.8 (SD 1.8), respectively. Respondents generally preferred on-site consultations to telemedicine (n=35, 58% vs n=24, 40%). A subgroup analysis revealed that respondents who already had received phone consultation, showed a higher preference for telemedicine (n/N=21/42, 50% vs n/N=3/18, 17%; χ22 [N=60]=7.5, P=.02, Cramer V=0.354), as well as those who had been treated for more than 3 months (n/N=17/31, 55% vs n/N=7/29, 24%; χ22 [N=60]=6.5, P=.04, Cramer V=0.329). Acceptance of telemedicine showed a moderate positive correlation with satisfaction (rs{58}=0.41, P<.05), but there were no correlations between the COVID-19 stringency index and the other variables. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high acceptance of and satisfaction with telemedicine, patients preferred on-site consultations. Preference for telemedicine was markedly higher in patients who had already received phone consultations or had been treated for longer than 3 months. This highlights the need to convey knowledge of eHealth services to patients and the value of building meaningful relationships with patients at the beginning of treatment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the modality of patient care should be discussed individually.

How Treatment Motivation Predicts Favorable Outcomes in Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment Among Patients with Chronic Primary Pain.

As motivation for psychological treatment at intake has been shown to predict favorable outcomes after an inpatient stay, this study aimed to further characterize the different components of psychological treatment motivation that predict favorable treatment outcomes. 294 inpatients with chronic primary pain participating in an interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment in a tertiary psychosomatic university clinic completed a battery of psychological questionnaires at intake and discharge. Treatment motivation was assessed at intake using the scales of the FPTM-23 questionnaire, while pain intensity, pain interference, anxiety, and depression were assessed both at intake and discharge. After treatment, pain intensity, pain interference, anxiety, and depression were significantly reduced. While higher levels on the FPTM-23 scale of suffering predicted smaller decreases in anxiety after treatment, higher scores on the scale of hope, i.e., lower levels of hopelessness, predicted lower levels of pain interference, anxiety, and depression after treatment. None of the scales of treatment motivation predicted pain intensity levels after treatment. Above and beyond providing symptom relief, reducing hopelessness and fostering hope regarding the treatment process and outcome might help clinicians treat patients with chronic primary pain more effectively.

Identification and Characterization of Pain Processing Patterns Among Patients With Chronic Primary Pain: A Replication.

OBJECTIVES: To develop individual and effective treatment plans for patients with chronic pain, we aimed to replicate Grolimund and colleagues' empirical categorization of chronic pain patients on a new and larger sample. Moreover, this work aimed to extend previous knowledge by considering various treatment outcomes and exploratorily analyzing which coping skills might be particularly relevant for treatment success in each subtype. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Latent class analysis was used to identify homogenous subtypes with different pain processing patterns using the pain processing questionnaire (FESV). RESULTS: By analyzing 602 inpatients with chronic primary pain, we identified 3 subtypes: (1) severely burdened individuals with low coping skills , (2) mildly burdened individuals with high coping skills , and (3) moderately burdened individuals with moderate coping skills. Pain interference, psychological distress, and cognitive and behavioral coping skills improved after treatment in all subtypes. Pain-related mental interference significantly improved only in subtypes (1) and (3). Only individuals of subtype (3) reported significant reductions in pain intensity after treatment. Exploratory regression analysis suggested that of subtype (1), the most promising targets in reducing pain interference and psychological distress posttreatment might be to foster relaxation techniques, counteractive activities, and cognitive restructuring . None of the FESV dimensions significantly predicted treatment outcomes among individuals of subtype (2). Individuals of subtype (3) might benefit the most from experiencing more competence during treatment. DISCUSSION: Our findings highlight the importance of identifying and characterizing subtypes of chronic primary pain patients and that these subtypes should be considered for individualized and effective treatment.

War experiences and relationship problems predict pain sensitivity cross-sectionally among patients with chronic primary pain.

BACKGROUND: Most patients suffering from chronic pain are more susceptible to pain and pressure due to higher pain sensitivity. Since psychosocial factors play a central role in developing and maintaining chronic pain, investigating associations between pain sensitivity and psychosocial stressors promises to advance the biopsychosocial understanding of chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to replicate Studer et al.'s (2016) findings about associations of psychosocial stressors with pain sensitivity in a new sample of patients with chronic primary pain (ICD-11, MG30.0). METHODS: A pain provocation test was used on both middle fingers and earlobes to assess pain sensitivity among 460 inpatients with chronic primary pain. Potentially life-threatening accidents, war experiences, relationship problems, certified inability to work, and adverse childhood experiences were assessed as potential psychosocial stressors. Structural equation modeling was used to investigate associations between psychosocial stressors and pain sensitivity. RESULTS: We partially replicated Studer et al.'s findings. Similar to the original study, patients with chronic primary pain showed enhanced pain sensitivity values. Within the investigated group, war experiences (ß = 0.160, p < .001) and relationship problems (ß = 0.096, p = .014) were associated with higher pain sensitivity. In addition, the control variables of age, sex, and pain intensity also showed a predictive value for higher pain sensitivity. Unlike Studer et al., we could not identify a certified inability to work as a predictor of higher pain sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that beyond age, sex, and pain intensity, the psychosocial stressors of war experiences and relationship problems were associated with higher pain sensitivity.

Improvements in pain coping predict treatment success among patients with chronic primary pain.

OBJECTIVE: Given the increasing incidence and prevalence of chronic pain, effective treatments for chronic pain are needed. This study aimed to investigate the role of cognitive and behavioral pain coping regarding the prediction of treatment outcomes among inpatients with chronic primary pain participating in an interdisciplinary multimodal treatment program. METHODS: At intake and discharge, 500 patients with chronic primary pain completed questionnaires on pain intensity, pain interference, psychological distress, and pain processing. RESULTS: Patients' symptoms, cognitive and behavioral pain coping improved significantly after treatment. Similarly, separate cognitive and behaviroal coping skills improved significantly after treatment. Hierarchical linear models revealed no significant associations of pain coping with reductions in pain intensity. Whereas the overall level and improvements in cognitive pain coping predicted reductions in pain interference and psychological distress, the overall level and improvements in behavioral pain coping were associated with reductions in pain interference alone. DISCUSSION: Since pain coping seems to influence both pain interference and psychological distress, improving cognitive and behavioral pain coping during an interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment seems to be a key component in the successful treatment of inpatients with chronic primary pain, enabling them to function better physically and mentally despite their chronic pain. Clinically, it might be worth fostering and exercising cognitive restructuring as well as action planning in treatment to reduce both pain interference and psychological distress levels post-treatment. In addition, practicing relaxation techniques might help reduce pain interference post-treatment, whereas making experiences of personal competence might help reduce psychological distress post-treatment.

Motive Satisfaction Among Patients with Chronic Primary Pain: A Replication.

We set out to replicate findings of significant (a) reductions in pain, psychological distress, and motivational incongruence (i.e., insufficient motive satisfaction) after interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment and (b) associations between reductions in motivational incongruence (i.e., improved motive satisfaction) and decreases in psychological distress (Vincent et al., Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings 28:331-343, 2021). 475 Patients with chronic primary pain completed standardized self-reported questionnaires assessing motivational incongruence, psychological distress, pain intensity, and pain interference at intake and discharge from a tertiary psychosomatic university clinic. We used hierarchical linear models to analyze motivational incongruence's effects on psychological distress. We partially replicated Vincent et al.'s findings. Significant reductions in pain, psychological distress, and motivational incongruence after treatment were found. Reductions in motivational incongruence were associated with reductions in psychological distress. Similarly, a better motive satisfaction mediated the relationship between pain interference and psychological distress. Our findings show that reducing motivational incongruence may be a key component of treating chronic primary pain; we recommend to assess and target motivational incongruence to improve interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment.