Peer Support for Self-Management of Chronic Pain: the Evaluation of a Peer Coach-Led Intervention to Improve Pain Symptoms (ECLIPSE) Trial.
ECLIPSE
chronic pain
pain self-management
peer support
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
10
02
2020
accepted:
23
06
2020
pubmed:
24
7
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
24
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pain self-management is an effective, evidence-based treatment for chronic pain. Peer support, in which patients serve as coaches for other patients, has been effective in other chronic conditions and is a potentially promising approach to implementing pain self-management programs using fewer clinical resources. To test a peer coach-delivered pain self-management program for chronic pain. Randomized controlled trial. Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Intervention patients were assigned a trained peer coach for 6 months. Coaches, who were volunteers, were asked to contact their assigned patients, either by phone or in person, twice per month. Coaches and patients were given an intervention manual to guide sessions. The control group was offered a 2-hour pain self-management class. The primary outcome was total pain, assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, self-efficacy, social support, patient activation, health-related quality of life, and healthcare utilization. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 months, and 9 months. Two hundred fifteen patients enrolled (120 intervention, 95 control). Adherence to intervention protocol was low, with only 13% of patients reporting having at least the recommended 12 peer coach meetings over the 6-month intervention. BPI total decreased from baseline to 6 months and baseline to 9 months in both groups. At 9 months, this change was statistically significant (intervention, - 0.40, p = 0.018; control, - 0.47, p = 0.006). There was not a statistically significant difference between groups on BPI at either time point. No secondary outcomes improved significantly in either group after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Patients randomized to peer support did not differ from control patients on primary and secondary outcomes. Other peer support models that do not rely on volunteers might be more effective. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380690.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Pain self-management is an effective, evidence-based treatment for chronic pain. Peer support, in which patients serve as coaches for other patients, has been effective in other chronic conditions and is a potentially promising approach to implementing pain self-management programs using fewer clinical resources.
OBJECTIVE
To test a peer coach-delivered pain self-management program for chronic pain.
DESIGN
Randomized controlled trial.
PARTICIPANTS
Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain.
INTERVENTION
Intervention patients were assigned a trained peer coach for 6 months. Coaches, who were volunteers, were asked to contact their assigned patients, either by phone or in person, twice per month. Coaches and patients were given an intervention manual to guide sessions. The control group was offered a 2-hour pain self-management class.
MAIN MEASURES
The primary outcome was total pain, assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, self-efficacy, social support, patient activation, health-related quality of life, and healthcare utilization. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 months, and 9 months.
KEY RESULTS
Two hundred fifteen patients enrolled (120 intervention, 95 control). Adherence to intervention protocol was low, with only 13% of patients reporting having at least the recommended 12 peer coach meetings over the 6-month intervention. BPI total decreased from baseline to 6 months and baseline to 9 months in both groups. At 9 months, this change was statistically significant (intervention, - 0.40, p = 0.018; control, - 0.47, p = 0.006). There was not a statistically significant difference between groups on BPI at either time point. No secondary outcomes improved significantly in either group after adjusting for multiple comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients randomized to peer support did not differ from control patients on primary and secondary outcomes. Other peer support models that do not rely on volunteers might be more effective.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380690.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32700220
doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06007-6
pii: 10.1007/s11606-020-06007-6
pmc: PMC7728830
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02380690']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3525-3533Subventions
Organisme : VA
ID : IIR 14-070
Pays : United States
Références
Institute of Medicine. Relieving pain in America: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, Turner A, Hainsworth J. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;48(2):177-187.
doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00032-0
Bair MJ, Matthias MS, Nyland KA, et al. Barriers and facilitators to chronic pain self-management: a qualitative study among primary care patients with comorbid musculoskeletal pain and depression. Pain Med. 2009;10:1280-1290.
doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00707.x
Matthias MS, Bair MJ, Nyland KA, et al. Self-management support and communication from nurse care managers compared to primary care physicians: a focus group study of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Manag Nurs. 2010;11(1):26-34.
doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2008.12.003
Matthias MS, Miech EJ, Myers LJ, Sargent C, Bair MJ. An expanded view of self-management: patients' experiences with self-management education and support in an intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Med. 2012;13:1018-1028.
doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01433.x
Dennis CL. Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40:321-332.
doi: 10.1016/S0020-7489(02)00092-5
Heisler M, Vijan S, Makki F, Piette JD. Diabetes control with reciprocal peer support versus nurse care management: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(8):507-516.
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00007
Haltiwanger EP, Brutus H. A culturally sensitive diabetes peer support for older Mexican-Americans. Occup Ther Int. 2011;19(2):67-75.
doi: 10.1002/oti.320
Piette J, Resnicow K, Choi H, Heisler M. A diabetes peer support intervention that improved glycemic control: mediators and moderators of intervention effectiveness. Chronic Illn. 2013;9(4): 258-67.
doi: 10.1177/1742395313476522
Chinman M, Oberman RS, Hanusa BH, et al. A cluster randomized trial of adding peer specialists to intensive case management teams in the Veterans Health Administration. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2013;PMID 23657754.
Salyers MP, Matthias MS, Spann CL, Lydick JM, Rollins AL, Frankel RM. The role of patient activation in psychiatric visits. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(11):1535-1539.
doi: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.11.1535
Maeng DD, Martsolf GR, Scanlon DP, Christianson JB. Care coordination for the chronically ill: understanding the patient’s perspective. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(5):1960-1979.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01405.x
Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff. 2013;32(2):207-214.
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061
Matthias MS, Daggy J, Adams J, et al. Evaluation of a peer coach-led intervention to improve pain symptoms (ECLIPSE): rationale, study design, methods, and sample characteristics. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;81:71-79.
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2019.04.002
Moerbeek M, Weng WK. Sample size formulae for trials comparing group and individual treatments in a multilevel model. Stat Med. 2008;27:2850-2864.
doi: 10.1002/sim.3115
Bauer DJ, Sterba SK, Hallfors DD. Evaluating group-based interventions when control participants are ungrouped. Multivar Behav Res. 2008;43:210-236.
doi: 10.1080/00273170802034810
Matthias MS, Daggy J, Ofner S, McGuire AB, Kukla M, Bair MJ. Exploring peer coaches’ outcomes: Findings from a clinical trial of patients with chronic pain. Patient Educ Couns. in press.
Miaskowski C, Dodd M, West C, et al. The use of a responder analysis to identify differences in patient outcomes following a self-care intervention to improve cancer pain management. Pain. 2007;129(1-2):55-63.
doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.09.031
Heisler M, Choi H, Mase R, Long JA, Reeves PJ. Effectiveness of technologically enhanced peer support in improving glycemic control among predominantly African American, low-income adults with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2019;45(3):260-271.
doi: 10.1177/0145721719844547
Tang TS, Funnell M, Sinco B, Spencer MS, Heisler M. Peer-led, empowerment-based, approach to self-management efforts in diabetes (PLEASED): a randomized controlled trial in an African-American community. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(Supplement 1):S27-35.
doi: 10.1370/afm.1819
Long JA, Jahnle EC, Richardson DM, Loewenstein G, Volpp KG. Peer mentoring and financial incentives to improve glucose control in African American veterans. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(6):416-424.
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-6-201203200-00004
Riegel B, Carlson B. Is individual peer support a promising intervention for persons with heart failure? J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004;19(3):174-183.
doi: 10.1097/00005082-200405000-00006