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

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 non-pharmacological care pathways pain navigator pragmatic clinical trial

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Shmagel

Ngo

Ensrud

, et al. Prescription medication use among community-based U.S. J Pain 2018; 19(10): 1104–1112.

Feldman

Carlesso

Nahin

. 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.

Chou

Deyo

Devine

, et al. The effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid treatment of chronic pain. Evid Rep Technol Assess 2014; 218: 1–219.

CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain—United States, 2016 guidelines. JAMA Network, https://jamanetwork-com.proxy.lib.duke.edu/journals/jama/article-abstract/2503508 (accessed 13 November 2019).

Chou

Deyo

Friedly

, 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.

Ford

Norrie

. Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med 2016; 375(5): 454–463.

Kerns

Brandt

Peduzzi

. NIH-DoD-VA pain management collaboratory. Pain Med 2019; 20(12): 2336–2345.

Weinfurt

Hernandez

Coronado

, et al. Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH collaboratory. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 17(1): 144.

Concannon

Meissner

Grunbaum

, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(8): 985–991.

10.

Bastian

Cohen

Katsovich

, 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.

11.

Balls-Berry

Acosta-Pérez

. 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.

12.

Boyer

Fair

Joosten

, 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.

13.

Gordon

Peduzzi

Kerns

. Designing trials with purpose: pragmatic clinical trials of nonpharmacological approaches for pain management. Pain Med 2020; 21(Suppl. 2): S7–S12.

14.

Lewin

Hendry

Chandler

, et al. Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR). BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 7: 76, https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0349-x (accessed 13 January 2021).

15.

Duncan

O’Cathain

Rousseau

, et al. Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study. BMJ Open 2020; 10(4): e033516.

16.

Deverka

Lavallee

Desai

, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res 2012; 1(2): 181–194.

17.

Concannon

Fuster

Saunders

, 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.

18.

Hamilton

Kramer

, et al. Stakeholder engagement in eight comparative effectiveness trials in African Americans and Latinos with asthma. Res Involv Engagem 2022; 8(1): 63.

19.

Esmail

Moore

Rein

. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res 2015; 4(2): 133–145.

20.

George

Coffman

Allen

, 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.

21.

Kerns

Philip

Lee

, et al. Implementation of the veterans health administration national pain management strategy. Transl Behav Med 2011; 1(4): 635–643.

22.

Malterud

Siersma

Guassora

. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016; 26(13): 1753–1760.

23.

Gale

Erhardt

, 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.

24.

Zade

Drouhard

Chinh

, et al. Conceptualizing disagreement in qualitative coding. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ’18, Montreal, QC, Canada, 11 January 2018, pp. 1–11. New York: ACM Press.

25.

Bradley

Curry

Devers

. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res 2007; 42(4): 1758–1772.

26.

SAGE Publications Inc., Qualitative data analysis, https://methods.sagepub.com/book/sage-qualitative-research-methods (2020, accessed 28 February 2020).

27.

Golafshani

. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep 2003; 8(4): 597–606.

28.

Practical resources for assessing and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242785900_Practical_Resources_for_Assessing_and_Reporting_Intercoder_Reliability_in_Content_Analysis_Research_Projects (accessed 28 February 2020).

29.

De Boer

Kovesdy

Navaneethan

, et al. Pragmatic clinical trials in CKD: opportunities and challenges. J Am Soc Nephrol 2016; 27(10): 2948–2954.

30.

Fritz

Rhon

Teyhen

, 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.

31.

Seal

Becker

Murphy

, 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.

32.

Larson

Tachibana

Thompson

, et al. Trials without tribulations: minimizing the burden of pragmatic research on healthcare systems. Healthc 2016; 4(3): 138–141.

33.

Veterans Health Administration, https://www.va.gov/health/ (accessed 24 March 2020).

34.

Khodyakov

Stockdale

Smith

, 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.