| Literature DB >> 33244439 |
Robert L Rhyne1, Heidi Rishel Brakey2, Jacquie R Halladay3,4, Kathleen Mottus4, K Allen Greiner5, Elizabeth Salt6, Orrin Myers7, Kent Sutton8, Jesus Fuentes2, Kevin E Vowles9.
Abstract
Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) involves one-third of the US population, and prescription opioids contribute to the opioid epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emphasizes maximizing non-opioid treatment, but many rural populations cannot access alternative therapies. Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs across four rural states performed a multi-site, single-arm intervention feasibility study testing methods and procedures of implementing a behavioral intervention, acceptance and commitment therapy, in primary care CNCP patients on chronic opioids. Using the CONSORT extension for feasibility studies, we describe lessons learned in recruiting/retaining participants, intervention implementation, data measurement, and multi-site procedures. Results inform a future definitive trial and potentially others conducting rural trials. © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2020.Entities:
Keywords: Feasibility study; acceptance and commitment therapy; chronic non-cancer pain; opioid; pilot study
Year: 2020 PMID: 33244439 PMCID: PMC7681117 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2020.26
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Transl Sci ISSN: 2059-8661
Baseline recruitment by study site and participant demographics
| Measure | Frequency ( |
|---|---|
| Sites | |
| Kansas | 7 (33.3) |
| Kentucky | 5 (23.8) |
| New Mexico | 3 (14.3) |
| North Carolina | 6 (28.6) |
| Participant demographics | |
| Female | 14 (66.7) |
| Race/Ethnicity | |
| Non-Hispanic White | 20 (95.2) |
| Black | 1 (4.8) |
| Age, years | 57 (42–70) |
| Education | |
| Less than high school | 1 (4.8) |
| High school or GED | 9 (42.9) |
| Some college – less than 4-yeardegree | 6 (28.6) |
| College degree | 5 (23.8) |
| Household income | |
| Less than $25,000 | 6 (28.6) |
| $25,000–$49,000 | 5 (23.8) |
| $50,000 or more | 10 (47.6) |
ACT intervention and PEG outcome measure frequency of completion
| Study site | Number of patients[ | ACT available sessions | ACT completed sessions | % | PEG collection | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas | 7 | 56 | 42 | 75 | 42 | 100 |
| Kentucky | 4 | 32 | 32 | 100 | 32 | 100 |
| New Mexico | 3 | 24 | 15 | 63 | 10 | 67 |
| North Carolina | 6 | 48 | 48 | 100 | 40 | 88 |
| Total | 20 | 160 | 137 | 86 | 124 | 91 |
One recruited Kentucky patient excluded because of insufficient time available to complete therapy sessions.
Challenges, lessons learned, and solutions by CONSORT checklist item
| Study issue | Challenges | Solutions and lessons |
|---|---|---|
| IRB | ||
| Single IRB (sIRB) | New infrastructure and processes to initiate | Modifications easier and better with team approach |
| Recruitment and retention of patients | ||
| Eligibility criteria | Patient reluctance to decrease opioids | Remove as goal in materials, consider in therapy |
| Age ≤ 65 years | Expand to >18 years | |
| Illicit drugs not included | Future, different study for this population | |
| Outreach | Referrals from providers (competing demands) | Clinic staff for recruitment, extend beyond primary care, recruitment outside clinic setting (e.g., radio ads, printed material) |
| Retention | Transportation in rural areas | Telemedicine, reimburse travel costs |
| Practice level | Clinic not prioritizing study | Sustained engagement |
| Recruitment | Stigma with “counselling” language | New terms to describe, therapist part of PCP structure |
| Intervention implementation: training/support for ACT therapists | ||
| Training therapists | Train therapists across states | Videoconferencing worked well |
| Training before enrollment | Align with patient sessions, form training network | |
| Therapists not in clinics | Use community resources, i.e., school counselors | |
| Protecting therapist time | Paying for time did not work out as planned | Dividing effort among team of therapists, better communication with management |
| Regulations for reimbursement | Do not allow clinics to charge regular fees and co-pays, use study funds to reimburse therapist time | |
| Intervention implementation | ||
| Scheduling | Issue for rural patients | Flexibility in timing/number of visits (16 vs 12 weeks) |
| Locations | Only used primary care clinic sites | Consider telemedicine ACT sessions |
| Survey | Sensitive questions asked | Need respectful way to deal with; are questions about illicit opioid misuse needed? |
| Baseline measurement/data collection | ||
| Data collection | Distance from university made data collection difficult | Train clinic staff, therapists in research methods, data collection |
| Need centralized way to collect data across states | REDCap worked, but data access and sharing was difficult with university firewall | |
| Time for survey due to tech and health literacy | Allow patients to complete over phone, may need to simplify language, and reduce number of measures | |
| Therapy audio files for fidelity | Used REDCap, but issues with file size; permissions had to be changed for audio files | |
| Study administration | ||
| Coordinating researchers | Staff across states | Used regular videoconferences |
| Coordinating clinics | Communication between researchers and clinics | Institute a regular huddle, include in-person visits |