Non-pharmacological interventions for veterans living with chronic pain: a scoping review and intervention map.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Rochelle Furtado, Joy C MacDermid, David M Walton, Goris Nazari, Pavlos Bobos
{"title":"Non-pharmacological interventions for veterans living with chronic pain: a scoping review and intervention map.","authors":"Rochelle Furtado, Joy C MacDermid, David M Walton, Goris Nazari, Pavlos Bobos","doi":"10.1080/09638288.2025.2474703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To describe the content of studied intervention programs, the rationale/mechanism and outcomes from these studies and the limitations and gaps within the existing literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar were searched for studies. Three authors screened studies against predefined inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed through qualitative synthesis. Articles were included if they addressed a rehabilitation intervention that focused on chronic pain management in a population of military veterans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 articles were included, 25 being randomized trials. Interventions varied in design components, sessions, and delivery mode (58% in-person, 25% remote, 17% mixed). Adherence and fidelity were reported by 78% of studies. Only 4/31 studies reported the use of veteran engagement during development of the intervention. A conceptual map summarizing the intervention components (5 main categories) expected mechanisms and outcomes (process, health and patient specific) from the primary interventions was created.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Poor reporting of content, rationale, and frameworks of non-pharmacological interventions for military veterans may explain why systematic reviews have not found support for their value. Future trials must improve rigor in design and reporting to be explicit and responsive to the needs of the veteran population facing chronic pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":50575,"journal":{"name":"Disability and Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2474703","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To describe the content of studied intervention programs, the rationale/mechanism and outcomes from these studies and the limitations and gaps within the existing literature.

Methods: CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar were searched for studies. Three authors screened studies against predefined inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed through qualitative synthesis. Articles were included if they addressed a rehabilitation intervention that focused on chronic pain management in a population of military veterans.

Results: A total of 31 articles were included, 25 being randomized trials. Interventions varied in design components, sessions, and delivery mode (58% in-person, 25% remote, 17% mixed). Adherence and fidelity were reported by 78% of studies. Only 4/31 studies reported the use of veteran engagement during development of the intervention. A conceptual map summarizing the intervention components (5 main categories) expected mechanisms and outcomes (process, health and patient specific) from the primary interventions was created.

Conclusions: Poor reporting of content, rationale, and frameworks of non-pharmacological interventions for military veterans may explain why systematic reviews have not found support for their value. Future trials must improve rigor in design and reporting to be explicit and responsive to the needs of the veteran population facing chronic pain.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Disability and Rehabilitation
Disability and Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
415
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Disability and Rehabilitation along with Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology are international multidisciplinary journals which seek to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of disability and to promote rehabilitation science, practice and policy aspects of the rehabilitation process.
×
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