Suchergebnisse

OVERVIEW. In the current work, we build upon a small body of literature that delineates cross-cutting factors, or processes, of evidence-based alcohol or other drug (AOD) therapies. Here, we discuss Psychoeducation. We define psychoeducation as a brief process of therapy focused on the communication of varied aspects of disease- and/or treatment-related information. METHOD. The authors conducted a literature review and qualitative content analysis to derive a set of principles and practices of psychoeducation. The review used source documents (i.e., literature reviews, therapy manuals, and government-issued practice guidelines) and videos (i.e., therapy demonstration videos), and we performed analyses in NVIVO. RESULTS. The review identified nine principles and 21 practices. Together, the principles suggest that psychoeducation in evidence-based addictions therapies can be characterized as a collaborative approach to teaching, education, or other provision of information. The term collaborative denotes a shift in emphasis from compliance to a more egalitarian partnership focused on meeting individual health needs. Specific practices included ways to transition to psychoeducation (e.g., provide rationale and promote expectancy), teaching methods in psychoeducation (e.g., use plain language), tailoring content in psychoeducation (e.g., to learning style, to cultural worldview), and methods for facilitating a dialogue about the information (i.e., five question types), for facilitating understanding and retention of the information (e.g., tailor to individual needs, use of varied teaching modalities), and how to end psychoeducation and engage in related goal-setting, where applicable. CONCLUSIONS. We frame psychoeducation as a collaborative approach to teaching where client engagement, understanding, and utilization of the information provided is the central goal. We offer a novel resource with pragmatic value to trainees, providers, and clinical supervisors who do not consider themselves aligned with a single ...

OVERVIEW. This work builds on previous efforts to delineate cross-cutting factors of evidence-based therapies. In this report, we target a single therapeutic factor—skills training for addictive behavior change—and we operationalize this factor in a manner that will aid clinical training and quality control. Specifically, we identify principles, which we defined as broader understandings on the part of the therapist that must be kept in mind when implementing a specific therapeutic practice. We define a practice as discrete action step or specific type of intervention that the therapist uses when addressing skills training content with clients. METHOD. We conducted a literature review and qualitative content analysis of 30 source documents (i.e., therapy manuals, literature reviews, and government issued practice guidelines) and videos (i.e., therapy demonstration videos). We performed analysis of source materials in NVIVO. RESULTS. We identified 10 principles and 30 therapeutic practices. Together, the principles suggest that skills training in evidence-based addiction therapies can be characterized as a client-centered approach to teaching and behavioral practice. The identified practices fell into four function themes: 1) client-centered goal-setting, 2) building client self-efficacy, 3) engaging in teaching, and 4) engaging in practice. CONCLUSIONS. When the identified principles and practices are combined, they can inform a fidelity-based approach to behavioral skills training that is applicable to a wide range of alcohol or other drug (AOD) content topics, therapeutic modalities, and implementation settings. We discuss future implications regarding standardized training and fidelity assessment.

This study explored patients' perspectives about taking the new direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for the treatment of Hepatitis C (i.e., sofosbuvir, simeprevir, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, ombitasvir/paritraprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir) to identify facilitators of medication adherence. The project was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 12 Veterans who successfully completed a treatment course on the new DAAs. The Veterans were recruited using purposive sampling. The data collected from the semi-structured interviews was analyzed using an adapted open coding method outlined by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003), with identification of relevant text sub-grouped into repeating ideas, and then creation of overarching themes and constructs. Results obtained provide insight into factors that influenced the Veterans' medication adherence during the course of treatment. Key constructs, embodying major themes supported by repeating ideas, included recognizing the "burden of HCV," the importance of the "treatment engagement process," and anticipation of "positive outcomes." Clinical implications are discussed.

Epidemics of both HIV/AIDS and alcohol abuse in sub-Saharan Africa have spurred the conduct of local behavioral therapy trials for these problems, but the ethical issues involved in these trials have not been fully examined. In this paper, we discuss ethical issues that emerged during the conduct of a behavioral intervention adaptation and trial using cognitive-behavioral therapy to reduce alcohol use among HIV-infected outpatients in Eldoret, Kenya. The study was performed within our multinational collaboration, the USAID-Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare Partnership. We discuss relevant ethical considerations and how we addressed them.

OBJECTIVE: Over the past decade, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has experienced a sizeable shift in its approach to pain. The VA's 2009 Pain Management Directive introduced the Stepped Care Model, which emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach to pain management involving pain referrals and management from primary to specialty care providers. Additionally, the Opioid Safety Initiative and 2017 VA/Department of Defense (DoD) clinical guidelines on opioid prescribing set a new standard for reducing opioid use in the VA. These shifts in pain care have led to new pain management strategies that rely on multidisciplinary teams and nonpharmacologic pain treatments. The goal of this study was to examine how the cultural transformation of pain care has impacted providers, the degree to which VA providers are aware of pain care services at their facilities, and their perceptions of multidisciplinary care and collaboration across VA disciplines. METHODS: We conducted semistructured phone interviews with 39 VA clinicians in primary care, mental health, pharmacy, and physical therapy/rehabilitation at eight Veterans Integrated Service Network medical centers in New England. RESULTS: We identified four major themes concerning interdisciplinary pain management approaches: 1) the culture of VA pain care has changed dramatically, with a greater focus on nonpharmacologic approaches to pain, though many "old school" providers continue to prefer medication options; 2) most facilities in this sample have no clear roadmap about which pain treatment pathway to follow, with many providers unaware of what treatment to recommend when; 3) despite multiple options for pain treatment, VA multidisciplinary teams generally work together to ensure that veterans receive coordinated pain care; and 4) veteran preferences for care may not align with existing pain care pathways. CONCLUSIONS: The VA has shifted its practices regarding pain management, with a greater emphasis on nonpharmacologic pain options. The proliferation of nonpharmacologic pain management strategies requires stakeholders to know how to choose among alternative treatments.

BACKGROUND: Veterans with significant chronic pain from musculoskeletal disorders are at risk of substance misuse. Veterans whose condition is the result of military service may be eligible for a disability pension. Department of Veterans Affairs compensation examinations, which determine the degree of disability and whether it was connected to military service, represent an opportunity to engage Veterans in pain management and substance use treatments. A multisite randomized clinical trial is testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Pain Management (SBIRT-PM) for Veterans seeking compensation for musculoskeletal disorders. This telephone-based intervention is delivered through a hub-and-spoke configuration. DESIGN: This study is a two-arm, parallel-group, 36-week, multisite randomized controlled single-blind trial. It will randomize 1,100 Veterans experiencing pain and seeking service-connection for musculoskeletal disorders to either SBIRT-PM or usual care across eight New England VA medical centers. The study balances pragmatic with explanatory methodological features. Primary outcomes are pain severity and number of substances misused. Nonpharmacological pain management and substance use services utilization are tracked in the trial. SUMMARY: Early trial enrollment targets were met across sites. SBIRT-PM could help Veterans, at the time of their compensation claims, use multimodal pain treatments and reduce existing substance misuse. Strategies to address COVID-19 pandemic impacts on the SBIRT-PM protocol have been developed to maintain its pragmatic and exploratory integrity.

BACKGROUND: Veterans with significant chronic pain from musculoskeletal disorders are at risk of substance misuse. Veterans whose condition is the result of military service may be eligible for a disability pension. Department of Veterans Affairs compensation examinations, which determine the degree of disability and whether it was connected to military service, represent an opportunity to engage Veterans in pain management and substance use treatments. A multisite randomized clinical trial is testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Pain Management (SBIRT-PM) for Veterans seeking compensation for musculoskeletal disorders. This telephone-based intervention is delivered through a hub-and-spoke configuration. DESIGN: This study is a two-arm, parallel-group, 36-week, multisite randomized controlled single-blind trial. It will randomize 1,100 Veterans experiencing pain and seeking service-connection for musculoskeletal disorders to either SBIRT-PM or usual care across eight New England VA medical centers. The study balances pragmatic with explanatory methodological features. Primary outcomes are pain severity and number of substances misused. Nonpharmacological pain management and substance use services utilization are tracked in the trial. SUMMARY: Early trial enrollment targets were met across sites. SBIRT-PM could help Veterans, at the time of their compensation claims, use multimodal pain treatments and reduce existing substance misuse. Strategies to address COVID-19 pandemic impacts on the SBIRT-PM protocol have been developed to maintain its pragmatic and exploratory integrity.

BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.