Effects of Biopsychosocial Education on the Clinical Judgments of Medical Students and GP Trainees Regarding Future Risk of Disability in Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lower back pain (CLBP) is a major health care burden and often results in workplace absenteeism. It is a priority for appropriate management of CLBP to get individuals back to work as early as possible. Interventions informed by the flags approach, which integrates cognitive and behavioral approaches via identification of biopsychosocial barriers to recovery, have resulted in reduced pain-related work absences and increased return to work for individuals with CLBP. However, research indicates that physicians' adherence to biopsychosocial guidelines is low. OBJECTIVE: The current study examined the effects of a flags approach-based educational intervention on clinical judgments of medical students and general practitioner (GP) trainees regarding the risk of future disability of CLBP patients. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (trial registration number: ISRCTN53670726). SETTING: University classroom. SUBJECTS: Medical students and GP trainees. METHODS: Using 40 fictional CLBP cases, differences in clinical judgment accuracy, weighting, and speed (experimental N = 32) were examined pre- and postintervention, as were flags approach knowledge, pain attitudes and beliefs, and empathy, in comparison with a no-intervention control group (control N = 31). RESULTS: Results revealed positive effects of the educational intervention on flags approach knowledge, pain-related attitudes and beliefs, and judgment weighting of psychologically based cues; results are discussed in light of existing theory and research. CONCLUSIONS: Short flags approach-based educational video interventions on clinical judgment-making regarding the risk of future disability of CLBP patients may provide opportunities to gain biopsychosocial knowledge, overcome associated attitude barriers, and facilitate development of clinical judgment-making more aligned with psychological cues.

An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Modalities Used to Deliver Electronic Health Interventions for Chronic Pain: Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health (eHealth) is the use of information and communication technology in the context of health care and health research. Recently, there has been a rise in the number of eHealth modalities and the frequency with which they are used to deliver technology-assisted self-management interventions for people living with chronic pain. However, there has been little or no research directly comparing these eHealth modalities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review with a network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the effectiveness of eHealth modalities in the context of chronic pain. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (N>20 per arm) that investigated interventions for adults with chronic pain, delivered via an eHealth modality, were included. Included studies were categorized into their primary node of delivery. Data were extracted on the primary outcome, pain interference, and secondary outcomes, pain severity, psychological distress, and health-related quality of life. Pairwise meta-analyses were undertaken where possible, and an NMA was conducted to generate indirect comparisons and rankings of modalities for reducing pain interference. RESULTS: The search returned 18,470 studies with 18,349 being excluded (duplicates=2310; title and abstract=16,039). Of the remaining papers, 30 studies with 5394 randomized participants were included in the review. Rankings tentatively indicated that modern eHealth modalities are the most effective, with a 43% chance that mobile apps delivered the most effective interventions, followed by a 34% chance that interventions delivered via virtual reality were the most effective. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review with an NMA generated comparisons between eHealth modalities previously not compared to determine which delivered the most effective interventions for the reduction of pain interference in chronic pain patients. There are limitations with this review, in particular, the underrepresented nature of some eHealth modalities included in the analysis. However, in the event that the review is regularly updated, a clear ranking of eHealth modalities for the reduction of pain interference will emerge.

Investigating the effectiveness of an online acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) intervention versus a waiting list control condition on pain interference and quality of life in adults with chronic pain and multimorbidity: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity refers to the presence of two or more chronic health conditions within one person, where no one condition is primary. Research suggests that multimorbidity is highly correlated with chronic pain, which is pain lasting longer than 3 months. Psychotherapeutic interventions for people living with chronic illness have resulted in reduced symptom reporting and improved psychological well-being. There is a dearth of research, however, using online psychotherapy for people living with multimorbidity where chronic pain is a central condition. This study will compare the effectiveness of an online acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) intervention with a waiting list control condition in terms of improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reducing levels of pain interference in people with chronic pain and at least one other condition. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 192 adult participants with non-malignant pain that persists for at least 3 months and at least one other medically diagnosed condition will be randomised to one of two study conditions. The experimental group will undergo an eight-session internet-delivered ACT programme over an 8-week period. A waiting list group will be offered the ACT intervention after the 3-month follow-up period. HRQoL and pain interference will act as the primary outcomes. Data will be analysed using a linear mixed model and adjusted to account for demographic and clinical variables as necessary. A Study Within a Trial will be incorporated to examine the effect on recruitment and retention of showing participants an animated educational video. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the National University of Ireland, Galway. Dissemination of results will be via peer reviewed journal articles and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22343024.

Judgement analysis of case severity and future risk of disability regarding chronic low back pain by general practitioners in Ireland.

Chronic low back pain is a major healthcare burden that has wide ranging effects on the individual, their family, society and the workplace. However, appropriate management and treatment is often difficult, as a majority of cases are non-specific in terms of underlying pathology. As a result, there are extensive differences in both individual patient preferences for treatment and treatment decisions amongst general practitioners. The current study examined the clinical judgements of GPs in Ireland, regarding fictional patients' case severity and future risk of disability, through judgement analysis. Judgement analysis (JA) is an idiographic regression modelling technique that has been utilised in extant healthcare research for the purpose of allocating weighting to judgement criteria, or cues, observed by professionals in their clinical decision-making. The primary aim of the study was to model two critical information utilisation tasks performed by GPs with regard to CLBP-in combining information cues to form a judgement about current case severity and a judgement about the same patient's risk of future disability. It was hypothesised that the judgement weighting would differ across the two judgements and that judgements regarding future risk of disability would be less consistent among GPs than judgements about case severity. Results from the regression-based judgement analysis and subsequent follow-up statistical analysis provided support for both study hypotheses. Study findings are discussed in light of theory and research on judgement, clinical decision-making and chronic low back pain.

Factors Influencing the Application of a Biopsychosocial Perspective in Clinical Judgement of Chronic Pain: Interactive Management with Medical Students.

BACKGROUND: Though there is wide support for the application of biopsychosocial perspectives in clinical judgement of chronic pain cases, such perspectives are often overlooked due to either inadequate training or attitudes favoring a biomedical approach. Recent research has indicated that despite such explanations, both established general practitioners (GP) and medical students account for some psychosocial factors when making clinical judgements regarding chronic pain cases, but report not being likely to apply these in real-world, clinical settings due to numerous factors, including available time with patients. Thus, it is evident that a greater understanding of clinical judgement-making processes and the factors that affect application of these processes is required, particularly regarding chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: The aims of the current study were to investigate medical students' conceptualizations of the factors that influence application of a biopsychosocial approach to clinical judgement-making in cases of chronic pain using interactive management (IM), model the relationships among these factors, and make recommendations to chronic pain treatment policy in light of the findings. STUDY DESIGN: The current study used IM to identify and model factors that influence the application of a biopsychosocial approach to clinical judgement-making in cases of chronic pain, based on medical students' conceptualizations of these factors. SETTING: Two university classrooms. METHODS: IM is a systems thinking and action mapping strategy used to aid groups in developing outcomes regarding complex issues, through integrating contributions from individuals with diverse views, backgrounds, and perspectives. IM commonly utilizes the nominal group technique and interpretive structural modeling, which in this context were employed to help medical students identify, clarify, and model influences on the application of biopsychosocial perspectives in treating chronic pain patients. RESULTS: Results of IM group work revealed 7 core biopsychosocial approach application categories: GP attitudes, cost, GP knowledge, time, patient-doctor relationship, biomedical factors. and patient perception. GP attitudes was the most critical driver of all other competencies in the system, with cost and GP knowledge revealed as secondary drivers. LIMITATIONS: Potential differences in level of prior biopsychosocial perspective knowledge across participants and a potentially small sample size (though consistent with past research and appropriate for an exploratory study of this nature - for purposes of achieving the depth and richness of the deliberation and qualitative insights revealed by participants using the IM methodology). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study may be used to both recommend further research on the identified factors influencing application of biopsychosocial perspectives in treatment of chronic pain and support amendment to extant health care policy, particularly with respect to cost, GP attitudes, and knowledge. Though this research claims neither that the influences identified are the only influences on biopsychosocial application, nor the order of their importance, the research does contribute to an on-going effort to better understand the factors that influence doctors in their treatment of chronic pain.Key words: Chronic pain, biopsychosocial, medical education, clinical judgement, interactive management, pain management.

Protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analysis of the modalities used to deliver eHealth interventions for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: As eHealth interventions prove both efficacious and practical, and as they arguably overcome certain barriers encountered by traditional face-to-face treatment for chronic pain, their number has increased dramatically in recent times. However, there is a dearth of research that focuses on evaluating and comparing the different types of technology-assisted interventions. This is a protocol for a systematic review that aims to evaluate the eHealth modalities in the context of psychological and non-psychological (other than non-drug) interventions for chronic pain. METHODS/DESIGN: We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 20 participants per trial arm that have evaluated non-drug psychological or non-psychological interventions delivered via an eHealth modality and have pain as an outcome measure will be included. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess the study suitability in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Studies will be included if they measure at least one outcome variable in accordance with the IMMPACT guidelines (i.e. pain severity, pain interference, physical functioning, symptoms, emotional functioning, global improvement and disposition). Secondary outcomes will be measures of depression and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A network meta-analysis will be conducted based on direct comparisons to generate indirect comparisons of modalities across treatment trials, which will return rankings for the eHealth modalities in terms of their effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Most trials that use an eHealth intervention to manage chronic pain typically use one modality. As a result, little evidence exists to support which modality type is the most effective. The current review will address this gap in the literature and compare the different eHealth modalities used for technology-assisted interventions for chronic pain. With the growing reliance and use of technology as a medium for delivering treatment for chronic conditions more generally, it is imperative that research identify the most efficacious eHealth modalities and systematically identify the most important features of such treatment types, so they may be replicated and used for research and in the provision of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42016035595.

Prevalence, impact and cost of multimorbidity in a cohort of people with chronic pain in Ireland: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity (MM) refers to the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions within one person, where no one condition is considered primary. As populations age and healthcare provision improves, MM is becoming increasingly common and poses a challenge to the single morbidity approach to illness management, usually adopted by healthcare systems. Indeed, recent research has shown that 66.2% of the people in primary care in Ireland are living with MM. Healthcare usage and cost is significantly associated with MM, and additional chronic conditions lead to exponential increases in service usage and financial costs, and decreases in physical and mental well-being. Certain conditions, for example, chronic pain, are highly correlated with MM. This study aims to assess the extent, profile, impact and cost of MM among Irish adults with chronic pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using cluster sampling, participants aged 18 years and over will be recruited from Irish pain clinics and provided an information package and questionnaire asking them to participate in our study at three time points, 1 year apart. The questionnaire will include our specially developed checklist to assess the prevalence and impact of MM, along with validated measures of quality of life, pain, depression and anxiety, and illness perception. Economic data will also be collected, including direct and indirect costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the National University of Ireland, Galway. Dissemination of results will be via journal articles and conference presentations.

Effectiveness of a biopsychosocial e-learning intervention on the clinical judgements of medical students and GP trainees regarding future risk of disability in patients with chronic lower back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic lower back pain (CLBP) is a major healthcare problem with wide ranging effects. It is a priority for appropriate management of CLBP to get individuals back to work as early as possible. Interventions that identify biopsychosocial barriers to recovery have been observed to lead to successfully reduced pain-related work absences and increased return to work for individuals with CLBP. Modern conceptualisations of pain adopt a biopsychosocial approach, such as the flags approach. Biopsychosocial perspectives have been applied to judgements about future adjustment, recovery from pain and risk of long-term disability; and provide a helpful model for understanding the importance of contextual interactions between psychosocial and biological variables in the experience of pain. Medical students and general practitioner (GP) trainees are important groups to target with education about biopsychosocial conceptualisations of pain and related clinical implications. AIM: The current study will compare the effects of an e-learning intervention that focuses on a biopsychosocial model of pain, on the clinical judgements of medical students and trainees. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Medical student and GP trainee participants will be randomised to 1 of 2 study conditions: (1) a 20 min e-learning intervention focused on the fundamentals of the flags approach to clinical judgement-making regarding risk of future pain-related disability; compared with a (2) wait-list control group on judgement accuracy and weighting (ie, primary outcomes); flags approach knowledge, attitudes and beliefs towards pain, judgement speed and empathy (ie, secondary outcomes). Participants will be assessed at preintervention and postintervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be performed in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki and is approved by the National University of Ireland Galway Research Ethics Committee. The results of the trial will be published according to the CONSORT statement and will be presented at conferences and reported in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN53670726; Pre-results.