Emily Murphy, Tiffany Toor, Sarah Palyo, Sara Librodo, Kathryn Schopmeyer, Alan N Simmons, Irina A Strigo
{"title":"比较旧金山退伍军人医疗保健系统中亲临现场和虚拟跨学科疼痛康复计划的疼痛结果和治疗依从性。","authors":"Emily Murphy, Tiffany Toor, Sarah Palyo, Sara Librodo, Kathryn Schopmeyer, Alan N Simmons, Irina A Strigo","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compared clinical pain outcomes between patients in a pain treatment program that was conducted in-person, compared with a virtual program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-person (N=127) and virtual (N=101) pain treatment programs were compared based on patient-reported, practitioner-collected, and medical record data. The patients were measured at baseline and post-treatment (week 12 for In-Person and week 8 for Virtual patients). We employed the last observation carried forward (LOCF) to handle missing data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both the In-Person and Virtual groups were similar in regard to all baseline outcomes, except the In-person group having significantly more co-morbidities at baseline, with particularly more cases of mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental diseases. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in the pain-related measurements of pain interference and pain catastrophizing thoughts, but neither group displayed a change in average pain across treatment. Further, both groups improved significantly on emotional well-being scores, but not on physical functioning scores. No significant differences existed between groups on outcomes, except for pain catastrophizing, which was higher in the Virtual group at both time points. The Virtual group had lower rates of dropouts compared with In-Person, while the In-Person group had a larger proportion reach a clinically meaningful change in pain-related outcomes, defined as a >30% improvement.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While some changes were unique to the In-Person program, overall, patients in the Virtual program achieved similar treatment outcomes, suggesting that it can successfully treat Veterans seeking pain management, with less need for in-person facilities for both patients and clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"655-664"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Pain Outcomes and Treatment Adherence Between In-Person and Virtual Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs at the San Francisco VA Health Care System.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Murphy, Tiffany Toor, Sarah Palyo, Sara Librodo, Kathryn Schopmeyer, Alan N Simmons, Irina A Strigo\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compared clinical pain outcomes between patients in a pain treatment program that was conducted in-person, compared with a virtual program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-person (N=127) and virtual (N=101) pain treatment programs were compared based on patient-reported, practitioner-collected, and medical record data. The patients were measured at baseline and post-treatment (week 12 for In-Person and week 8 for Virtual patients). We employed the last observation carried forward (LOCF) to handle missing data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both the In-Person and Virtual groups were similar in regard to all baseline outcomes, except the In-person group having significantly more co-morbidities at baseline, with particularly more cases of mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental diseases. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in the pain-related measurements of pain interference and pain catastrophizing thoughts, but neither group displayed a change in average pain across treatment. Further, both groups improved significantly on emotional well-being scores, but not on physical functioning scores. No significant differences existed between groups on outcomes, except for pain catastrophizing, which was higher in the Virtual group at both time points. The Virtual group had lower rates of dropouts compared with In-Person, while the In-Person group had a larger proportion reach a clinically meaningful change in pain-related outcomes, defined as a >30% improvement.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While some changes were unique to the In-Person program, overall, patients in the Virtual program achieved similar treatment outcomes, suggesting that it can successfully treat Veterans seeking pain management, with less need for in-person facilities for both patients and clinicians.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"655-664\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001243\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001243","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing Pain Outcomes and Treatment Adherence Between In-Person and Virtual Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs at the San Francisco VA Health Care System.
Objective: This study compared clinical pain outcomes between patients in a pain treatment program that was conducted in-person, compared with a virtual program.
Methods: In-person (N=127) and virtual (N=101) pain treatment programs were compared based on patient-reported, practitioner-collected, and medical record data. The patients were measured at baseline and post-treatment (week 12 for In-Person and week 8 for Virtual patients). We employed the last observation carried forward (LOCF) to handle missing data.
Results: Both the In-Person and Virtual groups were similar in regard to all baseline outcomes, except the In-person group having significantly more co-morbidities at baseline, with particularly more cases of mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental diseases. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in the pain-related measurements of pain interference and pain catastrophizing thoughts, but neither group displayed a change in average pain across treatment. Further, both groups improved significantly on emotional well-being scores, but not on physical functioning scores. No significant differences existed between groups on outcomes, except for pain catastrophizing, which was higher in the Virtual group at both time points. The Virtual group had lower rates of dropouts compared with In-Person, while the In-Person group had a larger proportion reach a clinically meaningful change in pain-related outcomes, defined as a >30% improvement.
Discussion: While some changes were unique to the In-Person program, overall, patients in the Virtual program achieved similar treatment outcomes, suggesting that it can successfully treat Veterans seeking pain management, with less need for in-person facilities for both patients and clinicians.
期刊介绍:
The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.