Partner engagement for planning and development of non-pharmacological care pathways in the AIM-Back trial

Lindsay A Ballengee, Heather A King, Corey Simon, Trevor A Lentz, Kelli D Allen, Catherine Stanwyck, Micaela Gladney, Steven Z George, S Nicole Hastings, Lindsay A Ballengee, Heather A King, Corey Simon, Trevor A Lentz, Kelli D Allen, Catherine Stanwyck, Micaela Gladney, Steven Z George, S Nicole Hastings

Abstract

Background/aims: Embedded pragmatic clinical trials are increasingly recommended for non-pharmacological pain care research due to their focus on examining intervention effectiveness within real-world settings. Engagement with patients, health care providers, and other partners is essential, yet there is limited guidance for how to use engagement to meaningfully inform the design of interventions to be tested in pain-related pragmatic clinical trials. This manuscript aims to describe the process and impacts of partner input on the design of two interventions (care pathways) for low back pain currently being tested in an embedded pragmatic trial in the Veterans Affairs health care system.

Methods: Sequential cohort design for intervention development was followed. Engagement activities were conducted with 25 participants between November 2017 and June 2018. Participants included representatives from multiple groups: clinicians, administrative leadership, patients, and caregivers.

Results: Partner feedback led to several changes in each of the care pathways to improve patient experience and usability. Major changes to the sequenced care pathway included transitioning from telephone-based delivery to a flexible telehealth model, increased specificity about pain modulation activities, and reduction of physical therapy visits. Major changes to the pain navigator pathway included transitioning from a traditional stepped care model to one that offers care in a feedback loop, increased flexibility regarding pain navigator provider type, and increased specificity for patient discharge criteria. Centering patient experience emerged as a key consideration from all partner groups.

Conclusion: Diverse input is important to consider before implementing new interventions in embedded pragmatic trials. Partner engagement can increase acceptability of new care pathways to patients and providers and enhance uptake of effective interventions by health systems.

Trial registration: NCT#04411420. Registered on 2 June 2020.

Keywords: Partner engagement; care pathways; non-pharmacological; pain navigator; pragmatic clinical trial.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Structure of Partner Engagement Process
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
First version of Sequenced Care Pathway
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
First version of Pain Navigator Pathway
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Sequenced Care Pathway
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Pain Navigator Pathway

References

    1. Shmagel A, Ngo L, Ensrud K, et al. Prescription Medication Use Among Community-Based U.S. Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Population Based Study. J Pain 2018; 19(10): 1104–1112.
    1. Feldman DE, Carlesso LC and Nahin RL. Management of Patients with a Musculoskeletal Pain Condition that is Likely Chronic: Results from a National Cross Sectional Survey. J Pain 2020; 21(7-8): 869–880.
    1. Chou R, Deyo R, Devine B, et al. The Effectiveness and Risks of Long-Term Opioid Treatment of Chronic Pain. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. doi:10.23970/AHRQEPCERTA218
    1. CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016 ∣ Guidelines ∣ JAMA ∣ JAMA Network. Accessed November 13, 2019.
    1. Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, et al. Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Intern Med 2017; 166(7): 493–505.
    1. Ford I and Norrie J. Pragmatic Trials. N Engl J Med 2016; 375(5): 454–463.
    1. Kerns RD, Brandt CA and Peduzzi P. NIH-DoD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory. Pain Med 2019; 20(12): 2336–2345.
    1. Weinfurt KP, Hernandez AF, Coronado GD, et al. Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 17(1): 144.
    1. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(8): 985–991.
    1. Bastian LA, Cohen SP, Katsovich L, et al. Stakeholder Engagement in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Emphasizing Relationships to Improve Pain Management Delivery and Outcomes. Pain Med 2020; 21(Suppl 2): S13–S20.
    1. Balls-Berry JE, Acosta-Pérez E. The Use of Community Engaged Research Principles to Improve Health: Community Academic Partnerships for Research. P R Health Sci J 2017; 36(2): 84–85.
    1. Boyer AP, Fair AM, Joosten YA, et al. A Multilevel Approach to Stakeholder Engagement in the Formulation of a Clinical Data Research Network. Med Care 2018; 56(10 Suppl 1): S22–S26.
    1. Gordon KS, Peduzzi P and Kerns RD. Designing Trials with Purpose: Pragmatic Clinical Trials of Nonpharmacological Approaches for Pain Management. Pain Med 2020; 21(Suppl 2): S7–S12.
    1. Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR) ∣ BMC Medical Research Methodology ∣ Full Text. Accessed January 13, 2021.
    1. Duncan E, O’Cathain A, Rousseau N, et al. Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study. BMJ Open 2020; 10(4): e033516.
    1. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012; 1(2): 181–194.
    1. Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, et al. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29(12): 1692–1701.
    1. Dy T, Hamilton WJ, Kramer CB, et al. Stakeholder engagement in eight comparative effectiveness trials in African Americans and Latinos with asthma. Res Involv Engagem 2022; 8(1): 63.
    1. Esmail L, Moore E and Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res 2015; 4(2): 133–145.
    1. George SZ, Coffman CJ, Allen KD, et al. Improving Veteran Access to Integrated Management of Back Pain (AIM-Back): Protocol for an Embedded Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial. Pain Med 2020; 21(Suppl 2): S62–S72.
    1. Kerns RD, Philip EJ, Lee AW, et al. Implementation of the veterans health administration national pain management strategy. Transl Behav Med 2011; 1(4): 635–643.
    1. Malterud K, Siersma VD and Guassora AD. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res 2016; 26(13): 1753–1760.
    1. Gale RC, Wu J, Erhardt T, et al. Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci 2019; 14(1): 11.
    1. Zade H, Drouhard M, Chinh B, et al. Conceptualizing Disagreement in Qualitative Coding. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’18. ACM Press; 2018:1–11. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173733
    1. Bradley EH, Curry LA and Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res 2007; 42(4): 1758–1772.
    1. Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications Inc. Published January 31, 2020. Accessed February 28, 2020.
    1. Golafshani N Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Qual Rep 2003; 8(4): 597–606.
    1. (PDF) Practical Resources for Assessing and Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Content Analysis Research Projects. Accessed February 28, 2020.
    1. de Boer IH, Kovesdy CP, Navaneethan SD, et al. Pragmatic Clinical Trials in CKD: Opportunities and Challenges. J Am Soc Nephrol 2016; 27(10): 2948–2954.
    1. Fritz JM, Rhon DI, Teyhen DS, et al. A Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) for Stepped Care Management of Low Back Pain in the Military Health System: A Trial Protocol. Pain Med 2020;21(Suppl 2): S73–S82.
    1. Seal KH, Becker WC, Murphy JL, et al. Whole Health Options and Pain Education (wHOPE): A Pragmatic Trial Comparing Whole Health Team vs Primary Care Group Education to Promote Nonpharmacological Strategies to Improve Pain, Functioning, and Quality of Life in Veterans—Rationale, Methods, and Implementation. Pain Med 2020; 21(Suppl 2): S91–S99.
    1. Larson EB, Tachibana C, Thompson E, et al. Trials without tribulations: Minimizing the burden of pragmatic research on healthcare systems. Healthc (Amst) 2016; 4(3): 138–141.
    1. Veterans Health Administration. Accessed March 24, 2020.
    1. Khodyakov D, Stockdale SE, Smith N, et al. Patient engagement in the process of planning and designing outpatient care improvements at the Veterans Administration Health-care System: findings from an online expert panel. Health Expect 2017; 20(1): 130–145.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner