Moving pain management programmes into the digital age: development and evaluation of an online PMP for people with chronic pain

Katie Herron, Alison Bradshaw, Matthew Liptrot, Gina Wieringa, Kerry Mathews, John Wiles, Selina Johnson
{"title":"Moving pain management programmes into the digital age: development and evaluation of an online PMP for people with chronic pain","authors":"Katie Herron, Alison Bradshaw, Matthew Liptrot, Gina Wieringa, Kerry Mathews, John Wiles, Selina Johnson","doi":"10.3389/fpain.2024.1337734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In response to Coronovirus Disease (COVID-19) health care restrictions, the pain management programme delivered group treatment digitally (OPMP). We aimed to: 1) evaluate pain related outcomes of the OPMP, 2) evaluate patient satisfaction and qualitive feedback of the OPMP and 3) compare OPMP outcomes with the pre-pandemic face to face (F2F) PMP outcomes. Methods Age, gender, pain duration, occupational status, referral information and patient satisfaction data were collected. Pre- and post-treatment pain related outcomes were compared by calculating mean difference, benchmarking with effect size (Cohen's d) and determining clinically significant change (CSC) for OPMP and F2F PMP. Results Two-hundred and thirty-seven patients provided outcome data, with 60 completing the OPMP and 177 completing the F2F PMP. OPMP patients were 10 years younger than the F2F PMP (44.8 vs 53.3), more were female (6.5:1 vs 2.8:1), more were working (45% vs 27%) and fewer were retired (3% vs 17%). The OPMP showed improvements comparable to the F2F PMP. Large effect size was reported across all outcome domains including objective physical outcomes. Eighty-one percent of OPMP patients were ‘extremely likely’ to recommend the programme but just over 50% of patients felt F2F would provide greater clinical benefits. Conclusion The results support that OPMP is effective for carefully selected patients following a multidisciplinary team assessment however more complex cases still require F2F PMP.","PeriodicalId":12641,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Pain Research","volume":"12 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpain.2024.1337734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction In response to Coronovirus Disease (COVID-19) health care restrictions, the pain management programme delivered group treatment digitally (OPMP). We aimed to: 1) evaluate pain related outcomes of the OPMP, 2) evaluate patient satisfaction and qualitive feedback of the OPMP and 3) compare OPMP outcomes with the pre-pandemic face to face (F2F) PMP outcomes. Methods Age, gender, pain duration, occupational status, referral information and patient satisfaction data were collected. Pre- and post-treatment pain related outcomes were compared by calculating mean difference, benchmarking with effect size (Cohen's d) and determining clinically significant change (CSC) for OPMP and F2F PMP. Results Two-hundred and thirty-seven patients provided outcome data, with 60 completing the OPMP and 177 completing the F2F PMP. OPMP patients were 10 years younger than the F2F PMP (44.8 vs 53.3), more were female (6.5:1 vs 2.8:1), more were working (45% vs 27%) and fewer were retired (3% vs 17%). The OPMP showed improvements comparable to the F2F PMP. Large effect size was reported across all outcome domains including objective physical outcomes. Eighty-one percent of OPMP patients were ‘extremely likely’ to recommend the programme but just over 50% of patients felt F2F would provide greater clinical benefits. Conclusion The results support that OPMP is effective for carefully selected patients following a multidisciplinary team assessment however more complex cases still require F2F PMP.
将疼痛管理计划带入数字时代:开发和评估针对慢性疼痛患者的在线疼痛管理计划
导言:为应对冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的医疗限制,疼痛管理计划以数字方式提供集体治疗(OPMP)。我们的目标是1)评估 OPMP 的疼痛相关结果;2)评估 OPMP 的患者满意度和质量反馈;3)比较 OPMP 与大流行前面对面 (F2F) PMP 的结果。方法 收集年龄、性别、疼痛持续时间、职业状况、转诊信息和患者满意度数据。通过计算平均差、以效应大小(Cohen's d)为基准以及确定 OPMP 和 F2F PMP 的临床显著变化 (CSC),对治疗前后的疼痛相关结果进行比较。结果 237 名患者提供了结果数据,其中 60 人完成了 OPMP,177 人完成了 F2F PMP。OPMP 患者比 F2F PMP 患者年轻 10 岁(44.8 岁对 53.3 岁),女性患者较多(6.5:1 对 2.8:1),在职者较多(45% 对 27%),退休者较少(3% 对 17%)。OPMP 的改善效果与 F2F PMP 相当。据报告,在所有结果领域(包括客观身体结果)都有较大的效果。81%的 OPMP 患者 "极有可能 "推荐该计划,但略高于 50%的患者认为 F2F 会带来更大的临床益处。结论 研究结果表明,OPMP 对经过多学科团队评估后精心挑选的患者有效,但更复杂的病例仍需要 F2F PMP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信