Alicia A Heapy1,2, Mary A Driscoll1,2, Eugenia Buta2, Kathryn M LaChappelle1, Sara Edmond1,2, Sarah L Krein3,4, John D Piette3,5, Kristin Mattocks6,7, Jennifer L Murphy8,9, Lynn DeBar10, R Ross MacLean1,2, Brett Ankawi1,2, Todd Kawecki1,2, Steve Martino1,2, Todd Wagner11,12, Diana M Higgins13,14. 1. VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut. 2. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. VA Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, Leeds, Massachusetts. 7. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. 8. US Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office, Washington, District of Columbia. 9. University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida. 10. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 11. Palo Alto VA Health Economics Resource Center, Menlo Park, California. 12. Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 13. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts. 14. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given access barriers to cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP), this pragmatic superiority trial will determine whether a remotely delivered CBT-CP intervention that addresses these barriers outperforms in-person and other synchronous forms of CBT-CP for veterans with musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: This pragmatic trial compares an asynchronous form of CBT-CP that uses interactive voice response (IVR) to allow patients to participate from their home (IVR CBT-CP) with synchronous CBT-CP delivered by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinician. Veterans (n=764; 50% male) with chronic musculoskeletal pain throughout nine VA medical centers will participate. The primary outcome is pain interference after treatment (4 months). Secondary outcomes, including pain intensity, depression symptom severity, sleep, self-efficacy, and global impression of change, are also measured after treatment. Where possible, outcomes are collected via electronic health record extraction, with remaining measures collected via IVR calls to maintain blinding. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation metrics will be collected to evaluate factors related to implementation. A budget impact analysis will be performed. SUMMARY: This pragmatic trial compares the outcomes, cost, and implementation of two forms of CBT-CP as delivered in the real-world setting. Findings from the trial can be used to guide future policy and implementation efforts related to these interventions and their use in the health system. If one of the interventions emerges as superior, resources can be directed to this modality. If both treatments are effective, patient preferences and health care system factors will take precedence when making referrals. Implications of COVID-19 on treatment provision and trial outcomes are discussed.
BACKGROUND: Given access barriers to cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP), this pragmatic superiority trial will determine whether a remotely delivered CBT-CP intervention that addresses these barriers outperforms in-person and other synchronous forms of CBT-CP for veterans with musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: This pragmatic trial compares an asynchronous form of CBT-CP that uses interactive voice response (IVR) to allow patients to participate from their home (IVR CBT-CP) with synchronous CBT-CP delivered by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinician. Veterans (n=764; 50% male) with chronic musculoskeletal pain throughout nine VA medical centers will participate. The primary outcome is pain interference after treatment (4 months). Secondary outcomes, including pain intensity, depression symptom severity, sleep, self-efficacy, and global impression of change, are also measured after treatment. Where possible, outcomes are collected via electronic health record extraction, with remaining measures collected via IVR calls to maintain blinding. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation metrics will be collected to evaluate factors related to implementation. A budget impact analysis will be performed. SUMMARY: This pragmatic trial compares the outcomes, cost, and implementation of two forms of CBT-CP as delivered in the real-world setting. Findings from the trial can be used to guide future policy and implementation efforts related to these interventions and their use in the health system. If one of the interventions emerges as superior, resources can be directed to this modality. If both treatments are effective, patient preferences and health care system factors will take precedence when making referrals. Implications of COVID-19 on treatment provision and trial outcomes are discussed.
Authors: Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; John T Farrar; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Robert D Kerns; Gerold Stucki; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Daniel B Carr; Julie Chandler; Penney Cowan; Raymond Dionne; Bradley S Galer; Sharon Hertz; Alejandro R Jadad; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Susan Martin; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; Wendye Robbins; James P Robinson; Margaret Rothman; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; Joachim Wernicke; James Witter Journal: Pain Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Alicia A Heapy; Diana M Higgins; Joseph L Goulet; Kathryn M LaChappelle; Mary A Driscoll; Rebecca A Czlapinski; Eugenia Buta; John D Piette; Sarah L Krein; Robert D Kerns Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Daniel C Cherkin; Karen J Sherman; Benjamin H Balderson; Andrea J Cook; Melissa L Anderson; Rene J Hawkes; Kelly E Hansen; Judith A Turner Journal: JAMA Date: 2016 Mar 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alicia A Heapy; Diana M Higgins; Kathryn M LaChappelle; Joseph Kirlin; Joseph L Goulet; Rebecca A Czlapinski; Eugenia Buta; John D Piette; Sarah L Krein; Caroline R Richardson; Robert D Kerns Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Roger Chou; Richard Deyo; Janna Friedly; Andrea Skelly; Robin Hashimoto; Melissa Weimer; Rochelle Fu; Tracy Dana; Paul Kraegel; Jessica Griffin; Sara Grusing; Erika D Brodt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joseph Ali; Alison F Davis; Diana J Burgess; Daniel I Rhon; Robert Vining; Stacey Young-McCaughan; Sean Green; Robert D Kerns Journal: Learn Health Syst Date: 2021-10-19