Timothy Y Mariano1,2,3,4, Limeng Wan5, Robert R Edwards1,2,5, Robert N Jamison1,2,5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, USA. 3. Butler Hospital, USA. 4. Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, USA. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review designed to evaluate the benefits of remote group pain management for persons with chronic pain was performed. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases were searched in April 2019. Eligible studies evaluated teletherapy for chronic pain based on set inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently screened eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Each study design was rated and study quality was assessed using an 11-point scale of methodological quality. RESULTS: Comprehensive searches identified 12 studies that met all inclusion/exclusion criteria and each study was assessed for type of technology, study design, outcome measures, study findings and limitations. No published studies investigated synchronous teletherapy for groups of chronic pain patients. Methods of assessment varied considerably across studies. Strength of evidence was moderate and many of the selected studies had issues with treatment compliance/adherence and selection bias. Teletherapy strategies for persons with chronic pain were shown to improve pain, mood, disability and catastrophising, however half of the studies selected did not meet the criteria for acceptable standards for internal validity. Those trials with limited therapist involvement appeared to be less beneficial and tended to report lower adherence than those which had higher levels of therapist guidance or peer support. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that teletherapy and remote online cognitive behavioural therapy strategies can be effective in improving quality of life among persons with chronic pain, although the overall quality of evidence is moderate. Controlled trials are needed to assess live remote teletherapy for chronic pain.
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review designed to evaluate the benefits of remote group pain management for persons with chronic pain was performed. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases were searched in April 2019. Eligible studies evaluated teletherapy for chronic pain based on set inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently screened eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Each study design was rated and study quality was assessed using an 11-point scale of methodological quality. RESULTS: Comprehensive searches identified 12 studies that met all inclusion/exclusion criteria and each study was assessed for type of technology, study design, outcome measures, study findings and limitations. No published studies investigated synchronous teletherapy for groups of chronic pain patients. Methods of assessment varied considerably across studies. Strength of evidence was moderate and many of the selected studies had issues with treatment compliance/adherence and selection bias. Teletherapy strategies for persons with chronic pain were shown to improve pain, mood, disability and catastrophising, however half of the studies selected did not meet the criteria for acceptable standards for internal validity. Those trials with limited therapist involvement appeared to be less beneficial and tended to report lower adherence than those which had higher levels of therapist guidance or peer support. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that teletherapy and remote online cognitive behavioural therapy strategies can be effective in improving quality of life among persons with chronic pain, although the overall quality of evidence is moderate. Controlled trials are needed to assess live remote teletherapy for chronic pain.
Authors: Leigh Hale; Hemakumar Devan; Cheryl Davies; Sarah Gerard Dean; Anthony Dowell; Rebecca Grainger; Andrew R Gray; Dagmar Hempel; Tristram Ingham; Bernadette Jones; William Leung; Jessica Mills; Barbara Saipe; Edward Shipton; Meredith Perry Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Valerie Hruschak; K Mikayla Flowers; Desiree R Azizoddin; Robert N Jamison; Robert R Edwards; Kristin L Schreiber Journal: Pain Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Yang Lu; Duo Xie; Xiaolei Zhang; Sheng Dong; Huifang Zhang; Beibei Yu; Guihuai Wang; James Jin Wang; Luming Li Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Tristan J Philippe; Naureen Sikder; Anna Jackson; Maya E Koblanski; Eric Liow; Andreas Pilarinos; Krisztina Vasarhelyi Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-05-12
Authors: Kai Karos; Joanna L McParland; Samantha Bunzli; Hemakumar Devan; Adam Hirsh; Flavia P Kapos; Edmund Keogh; David Moore; Lincoln M Tracy; Claire E Ashton-James Journal: Pain Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 7.926