Benchmark findings from a veteran electronic patient-reported outcomes evaluation from a chronic pain management telehealth program

• Main Authors: Jolie N. Haun (Author), Christopher A. Fowler (Author), Bridget M. Smith (Author), Lishan Cao (Author), Kevin T. Stroupe (Author), William A. Lapcevic (Author), Michael S. Saenger (Author), Rachel C. Benzinger (Author), Dustin D. French (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2024-03-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12913-024-10816-4; 1472-6963
• Keywords: Chronic pain; Pain management; Opioids; Benzodiazepines; Veterans; Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT); Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: BMC Health Services Research, Vol 24, Iss 1, Pp 1-15 (2024)

Abstract Background Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability and negatively impacts biological/physical, psychological, and social aspects of life resulting in significant pain interference or disability. This project was part of a longitudinal mixed-methods implementation evaluation of the TelePain-Empower Veterans Program (EVP), a non-pharmacological chronic pain intervention. The purpose of this quality management project was to examine electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROs) including primary pain-related (intensity, interference, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia) and secondary outcomes (physical, psychological, acceptance, social) to determine TelePain-EVP effectiveness. Secondary purpose was to examine dosing effects to better understand potential dose relationships between EVP use and ePROs. Methods Standardized ePRO measures were examined at week 1 (baseline), week 10 (post-EVP), and week 26 (follow-up). Qualtrics, a cloud-based platform was used to collect ePRO data at each time point. Veterans that completed at-least one survey at any specified time point were categorized as responders (n = 221). Linear-mixed models (LMMs) were fit to assess changes for each primary and secondary ePRO. Results Participants ranged from 24 to 81 years old; veterans were typically male (65.16%), black or African American (76.47%), married or partnered (41.63%), attended at-least some college or vocational school (67.87%), and reported low back as their primary pain location (29.41%). There was a significant decrease in pain catastrophizing from baseline to post-TelePain-EVP (p < .001). However, pain catastrophizing improvement from baseline was not present at week 26 (p = .116). Pain interference also decreased from baseline to post-treatment (p = .05), but this improvement did not exceed the adjusted significance threshold. Additional pre-post improvements were also observed for certain secondary ePROs: psychological (anxiety, depression), acceptance (activities engagement). Only the activities engagement effect remained 26 weeks from baseline. Mixed results were observed for EVP dose across primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusions Evidence from this evaluation indicate that TelePain-EVP has positive outcomes for certain pain (catastrophizing), psychological (anxiety, depression), and acceptance (activities engagement) for veterans with chronic pain. More TelePain related studies and enterprise-wide evaluations are needed along with comparative and cost effectiveness methods to determine patient benefits and the economic value gained of treatment options such as TelePain-EVP.