Background: To facilitate adherence to adaptive pain management behaviors after interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment, we developed a mobile health app (AGRIPPA app) that contains two behavior regulation strategies. Objective: The aims of this project are (1) to test the effectiveness of the AGRIPPA app on pain disability; (2) to determine the cost-effectiveness; and (3) to explore the levels of engagement and usability of app users. Methods: We will perform a multicenter randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups. Within the 12-month inclusion period, we plan to recruit 158 adult patients with chronic pain during the initial stage of their interdisciplinary treatment program in one of the 6 participating centers. Participants will be randomly assigned to the standard treatment condition or to the enhanced treatment condition in which they will receive the AGRIPPA app. Patients will be monitored from the start of the treatment program until 12 months posttreatment. In our primary analysis, we will evaluate the difference over time of pain-related disability between the two conditions. Other outcome measures will include health-related quality of life, illness perceptions, pain self-efficacy, app system usage data, productivity loss, and health care expenses. Results: The study was approved by the local Medical Research Ethics Committee in October 2019. As of March 20, 2020, we have recruited 88 patients. Conclusions: This study will be the first step in systematically evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the AGRIPPA app. After 3 years of development and feasibility testing, this formal evaluation will help determine to what extent the app will influence the maintenance of treatment gains over time. The outcomes of this trial will guide future decisions regarding uptake in clinical practice.
LINK
Background and objectives: Although Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment (IMPT) programmes share a biopsychosocial approach to increase the wellbeing of patients with chronic pain, substantial variation in content and duration have been reported. In addition, it is unclear to what extent any favourable health outcomes are maintained over time. Therefore, our first aim was to identify and analyse the change over time of patient-related outcome measures in cohorts of patients who participated in IMPT programmes. Our second aim was to acquire insight into the heterogeneity of IMPT programmes. Databases and data treatment: The study protocol was registered in Prospero under CRD42018076093. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Cinahl from inception to May 2020. All study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were independently performed by two researchers. Study cohorts were eligible if they included adult patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain for at least 3 months. We assessed the change over time, by calculating pre-post, post-follow-up and pre-follow-up contrasts for seven different patient-reported outcome domains. To explore the variability between the IMPT programmes, we summarized the patient characteristics and treatment programmes using the intervention description and replication checklist. Results: The majority of the 72 included patient cohorts significantly improved during treatment. Importantly, this improvement was generally maintained at follow-up. In line with our expectations and with previous studies, we observed substantial methodological and statistical heterogeneity. Conclusions: This study shows that participation in an IMPT programme is associated with considerable improvements in wellbeing that are generally maintained at follow-up. The current study also found substantial heterogeneity in dose and treatment content, which suggests different viewpoints on how to optimally design an IMPT programme. Significance: The current study provides insight into the different existing approaches regarding the dose and content of IMPT programs. This analysis contributes to an increased understanding of the various approaches by which a biopsychosocial perspective on chronic pain can be translated to treatment programs. Furthermore, despite theoretical and empirical assertions regarding the difficulty to maintain newly learned health behaviors over time, the longitudinal analysis of health outcomes did not find a relapse pattern for patients who participated in IMPT programs.
LINK
Background: Although interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment (IMPT) programs are widely regarded as treatment of choice for patients with chronic pain, there are signs that many patients are unable to maintain their treatment gains in the long term. To facilitate the maintenance of positive treatment outcomes over time, we developed two relapse prevention strategies. Objective: The main objective of this study was to explore the feasibility of these strategies within the context of IMPT programs. Methods: We performed a feasibility study using 3 workbook prototypes containing either one or both strategies. For a period of 6 months, the workbooks were made available in two IMPT facilities. Qualitative data were collected through a focus group and semistructured interviews. We performed a thematic analysis using a deductive approach with (1) applicability to the treatment program, (2) acceptability of the workbook content, and (3) form, as predefined themes. Results: The final dataset consisted of transcripts from a focus group with health care providers and 11 telephone interviews and 2 additional in-depth interviews with patients. In general, the intervention was perceived as useful, easy to use, and in line with the treatment program. The data also include suggestions to further improve the use of both strategies, including more specific implementation guidelines, revised goal-setting procedure, and development of a mobile health version. However, several factors, including a high dropout rate and small sample size, impact the external validity of our findings. Conclusions: This study should be regarded as a first step in the process of transforming the prototype workbook into an effective intervention for clinical practice. Although these initial results indicate a favorable evaluation of both behavior regulation strategies within the workbook, this study encountered multiple barriers regarding implementation and data collection that limit the generalizability of these results. Future research efforts should specifically address the fidelity of HCPs and patients and should include clear procedures regarding recruitment and use of both relapse prevention strategies during treatment.
LINK
Objective: Systematic review to identify predictors for dropout during interdisciplinary pain management programmes. Data sources: PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to 22 June 2017. Study selection: Screening, data-extraction and quality assessment was carried out independently by 2 researchers. Data synthesis: Eight studies with low methodological quality were included in this review. Out of 63 potential predictors identified in univariate analyses, significant results were found for 18 predictors of dropout in multiple logistic regression analyses in 4 domains, as described by Meichenbaum & Turk: (i) sociodemographic domain (2); (ii) patient domain (8); (iii) disease domain (6); and (iv) treatment domain (2). Conclusion: This systematic review presents an overview of predictors of dropout. The literature with regard to the prediction of dropout has focused mainly on patient characteristics and is still in the stage of model development. Future research should focus on therapist/therapy-related predictors and the interaction between these predictors. This review suggests future research on this topic, in order to generate better outcomes in interdisciplinary pain management programmes.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To explore predictors of dropout of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain from an interdisciplinary chronic pain management programme, and to develop and validate a multivariable prediction model, based on the Extended Common- Sense Model of Self-Regulation (E-CSM). Methods: In this prospective cohort study consecutive patients with chronic pain were recruited and followed up (July 2013 to May 2015). Possible associations between predictors and dropout were explored by univariate logistic regression analyses. Subsequently, multiple logistic regression analyses were executed to determine the model that best predicted dropout. Results: Of 188 patients who initiated treatment, 35 (19%) were classified as dropouts. The mean age of the dropout group was 47.9 years (standard deviation 9.9). Based on the univariate logistic regression analyses 7 predictors of the 18 potential predictors for dropout were eligible for entry into the multiple logistic regression analyses. Finally, only pain catastrophizing was identified as a significant predictor. Conclusion: Patients with chronic pain who catastrophize were more prone to dropout from this chronic pain management programme. However, due to the exploratory nature of this study no firm conclusions can be drawn about the predictive value of the E-CSM of Self-Regulation for dropout.
DOCUMENT
Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT) is a biopsychosocial treatment approach for patients with chronic pain that comprises at least psychological and physiotherapeutic interventions. Core outcome sets (COSs) are currently developed in different medical fields to standardize and improve the selection of outcome domains, and measurement instruments in clinical trials, to make trial results meaningful, to pool trial results, and to allow indirect comparison between interventions. The objective of this study was to develop a COS of patient-relevant outcome domains for chronic pain in IMPT clinical trials. An international, multiprofessional panel (patient representatives [n = 5], physicians specialized in pain medicine [n = 5], physiotherapists [n = 5], clinical psychologists [n = 5], and methodological researchers [n = 5]) was recruited for a 3-stage consensus study, which consisted of a mixed-method approach comprising an exploratory systematic review, a preparing online survey to identify important outcome domains, a face-to-face consensus meeting to agree on COS domains, and a second online survey (Delphi) establishing agreement on definitions for the domains included. The panel agreed on the following 8 domains to be included into the COS for IMPT: pain intensity, pain frequency, physical activity, emotional wellbeing, satisfaction with social roles and activities, productivity (paid and unpaid, at home and at work, inclusive presentism and absenteeism), health-related quality of life, and patient's perception of treatment goal achievement. The complexity of chronic pain in a biopsychosocial context is reflected in the current recommendation and includes physical, mental, and social outcomes. In a subsequent step, measurement instruments will be identified via systematic reviews.
DOCUMENT
Background. The Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire has been developed to measure patients’ beliefs of necessity of and concerns about rehabilitation. Preliminary evidence suggests that these beliefs may be associated with attendance of rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire for interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation and to examine the measurement properties of the Dutch translation including the predictive validity for dropout. Methods. The questionnaire was translated in 4 steps: forward translation from English into Dutch, achieving consensus, back translation into English, and pretesting on providers and patients. In order to establish structural validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and predictive validity of the questionnaire, 188 participants referred to a rehabilitation centre for outpatient interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation completed the questionnaire at the baseline. Dropout was measured as the number of patients starting, but not completing the programme. For reproducibility, 51 participants were recruited at another rehabilitation centre to complete the questionnaire at the baseline and one week later. Results. We confirmed the structural validity of the Treatment beliefs Questionnaire in the Dutch translation with three subscales, necessity, concerns, and perceived barriers. internal consistency was acceptable with ordinal alphas ranging from 0.66–0.87. Reproducibility was acceptable with ICC2,1 agreement ranging from 0.67–0.81. Hypotheses testing confirmed construct validity, similar to the original questionnaire. Predictive validity showed the questionnaire was unable to predict dropouts. Conclusion. Cross-cultural translation was successfully completed, and the Dutch Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire demonstrates similar psychometric properties as the original English version.
DOCUMENT
Intensive collaboration between different disciplines is often not without obstacles—healthcare and creative professionals come from different worlds that are not automatically aligned. This study investigates the research question: how do project partners in Create-Health innovation collaborate across boundaries, and how does it add value to interdisciplinary collaboration? It addresses the close collaborations between researchers and practice partners from creative industry and healthcare sector within ten research projects on eHealth innovation. It describes the way that Create-Health collaboration took shape across disciplinary boundaries and provides examples of boundary crossing from the ten projects, with the objective of stimulating learning in the creative and health sectors on creative ways of working on interdisciplinary projects. Findings focus on the way partners from various backgrounds work together across disciplinary boundaries and on the benefits that such collaborations bring for a project.
DOCUMENT
Introduction F-ACT is a flexible version of Assertive Community Treatment to deliver care in a changing intensity depending on needs of individuals with severe mental illnesses (Van Veldhuizen, 2007). In 2016 a number of the FACT-teams in the Dutch region of Utrecht moved to locations in neighborhoods and started to work as one network team together with neighborhood based facilities in primary care (GP’s) and in the social domain (supported living, social district teams, etc.). This should create better chances on clinical, social and personal recovery of service users. Objectives This study describes the implementation, obstacles and outcomes for service users. The main question is whether this Collaborative Mental Health Care in the Community produces better outcome than regular FACT. Measures include (met/unmet) needs for care, quality of life, clinical, functional and personal recovery, and hospital admission days. Methods Data on care utilization regarding the innovation are compared to regular FACT. Qualitative interviews are conducted to gain insight in the experiences of service users, their family members and mental health care workers. Changes in outcome measures of service users in pilot areas (N=400) were compared to outcomes of users (matched on gender and level of functioning) in regular FACT teams in the period 2015-2018 (total N=800). Results Data-analyses will take place from January to March 2019. Initial analyses point at a greater feeling of holding and safety for service users in the pilot areas and less hospital admission days. Conclusions Preliminary results support the development from FACT to a community based collaborative care service.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Since 2011, a tailored, interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation (IHNR) program, covered by the basic healthcare insurance, is offered to advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). This program is developed to preserve or restore patients' functioning, and to optimize health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It applies an integrated approach to define patients' individual goals and provide rehabilitation care throughout the cancer care continuum. The aim of the current study is to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of the IHNR approach compared to usual supportive care (USC) consisting of monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary care in advanced HNC patients.METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study is designed to compare (cost-)effectiveness of the IHNR to USC for advanced HNC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT). The primary outcome is HRQoL represented in the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score. Functional HRQoL, societal participation, utility values, return to work (RTW), unmet needs (UN), patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes are secondary outcomes, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, USER-P, EQ-5D-5 L, and study-specific questionnaires, respectively. Both patient groups (required sample size: 64 per arm) are requested to complete the questionnaires at: diagnosis (baseline; T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after start of medical treatment. Differences in outcomes between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using mixed effects models, Chi-square test and descriptive statistics. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed by means of a Markov decision model. The CEA will be performed using a societal perspective of the Netherlands.DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter study will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IHNR compared to USC. RTW and societal participation, included as secondary outcomes, have not been studied sufficiently yet in cancer rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has not yet been implemented as usual care in all centers, which offers the opportunity to perform a controlled clinical study. If demonstrated to be (cost-)effective, national provision of the program can probably be advised.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).
DOCUMENT
