Some healthcare systems are relieving primary care providers (PCPs) of "the burden" of managing chronic pain and opioid prescribing, instead offloading chronic pain management to pain specialists. Last year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a biopsychosocial approach to pain management that discourages opioid use and promotes exercise therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and non-opioid medications as first-line patient-centered, multi-modal treatments best delivered by an interdisciplinary team. In the private sector, interdisciplinary pain management services are challenging to assemble, separate from primary care and not typically reimbursed. In contrast, in a fully integrated health care system like the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), interdisciplinary clinics already exist, and one such clinic, the Integrated Pain Team (IPT) clinic, integrates and co-locates pain-trained PCPs, a psychologist and a pharmacist in primary care. The IPT clinic has demonstrated significant success in opioid risk reduction. Unfortunately, proposed legislation threatens to dismantle aspects of the VA such that these interdisciplinary services may be eliminated. This Perspective explains why it is critical not only to maintain interdisciplinary pain services in VHA, but also to consider disseminating this model to other health care systems in order to implement patient-centered, guideline-concordant care more broadly.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines advise decreasing opioids for chronic pain, but there is no guidance on implementation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an Integrated Pain Team (IPT) clinic in decreasing opioid dose and mitigating opioid risk. DESIGN: This study prospectively compared two matched cohorts receiving chronic pain care through IPT (N = 147) versus usual primary care (UPC, N = 147) over 6 months. Patients were matched on age, sex, psychiatric diagnoses, and baseline opioid dose. PATIENTS: Veterans receiving care at a VA medical center or VA community-based clinics. INTERVENTION: Interdisciplinary IPT, consisting of a collocated medical provider, psychologist, and pharmacist embedded in VA primary care providing short-term biopsychosocial management of veterans with chronic pain and problematic opioid use. MAIN MEASURES: Change in opioid dose expressed as morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) and opioid risk mitigation evaluated at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. KEY RESULTS: Compared with veterans receiving UPC, those followed by IPT had a greater mean MEDD decrease of 42 mg versus 8 mg after 3 months and 56 mg versus 17 mg after 6 months. In adjusted analysis, compared with UPC, veterans in IPT achieved a 34-mg greater mean reduction at 3 months (p = 0.002) and 38-mg greater mean reduction at 6 months (p = 0.003). Nearly twice as many patients receiving care through IPT versus UPC reduced their daily opioid dose by ≥50%, representing more than a twofold improvement at 3 months, which was sustained at 6 months [odds ratio = 2.03; 95% CI = 1.04-3.95, p = 0.04]. Significant improvements were also demonstrated in opioid risk mitigation by 6 months, including increased urine drug screen monitoring, naloxone kit distribution, and decreased co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines (all p values < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interdisciplinary biopsychosocial models of pain care can be embedded in primary care and lead to significant improvements in opioid dose and risk mitigation.

Purpose To examine the impact of a pilot VA Whole Health Coaching program, including whether and how the program helps veterans improve their health and quality of life. Intervention Whole Health Coaching is a structured program to support veterans in making healthy behavior changes to promote holistic well-being. Design This mixed-methods quality-improvement evaluation combined surveys (pre- and post-coaching) with follow-up qualitative interviews. Setting The setting was a large VA healthcare system, encompassing a medical center and six community-based clinics in Northern California. Participants 65 veterans completed surveys at both time points; 42 completed qualitative interviews. Method Telephone surveys administered at baseline and 3 months assessed global health (PROMIS-10), perceived stress (PSS-4), and perceived health competency (PHCS-2). Pre- and post-scores were compared using t-tests. A subsample of participants completed a qualitative interview evaluating program experience, goal attainment, and the coaching relationship. Results Surveys showed significant improvements over baseline in mental health (p = 0.006; d = 0.36), stress (p = 0.003; d = –0.38), and perceived health competence (p = 0.01; d = 0.35). Interviewees were highly satisfied with their coaching experience, describing both effective program components and improvement opportunities. Conclusion Whole Health Coaching can help participants make meaningful progress toward health goals, reduce stress, and improve quality of life. The Whole Health model’s emphasis on holistic self-assessment; patient-driven goal-setting; supportive, non-judgmental inquiry; and mindful awareness contributed to program success and enhanced participants’ experience.

Background Mounting concern about the risks and limited effectiveness of opioid therapy for chronic pain has spurred the implementation of novel integrated biopsychosocial pain care models in health-care systems like the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). However, little is known about patient experiences with these new care models. Objective We conducted a qualitative study to examine patient experiences with a pain care model currently being disseminated at the VA: interdisciplinary, integrated pain teams (IPTs) embedded in primary care. Method We interviewed 41 veterans who received care from VA’s first IPT to learn how working with the team impacted their pain care and quality of life. We asked about their overall experience with IPT, what worked and did not work for them, and what changes they would recommend to improve IPT care. Results The interviews revealed a wide spectrum of patient experiences and varying perspectives on the extent to which the new model improved their pain and quality of life. Thematic analysis shed light on factors impacting patients’ experiences, including pretreatment goals and expectations as well as attitudes toward opioids and nonpharmacological treatments. Conclusion We discuss the implications of our findings for national efforts to implement biopsychosocial pain care, and we offer recommendations to promote patient-centered implementation.

More than 100 million people globally are estimated to be exposed to arsenic in drinking water that exceeds the World Health Organization guideline of 10 µg/L. In an effort to develop and test a low-cost sustainable approach for water arsenic testing in Bangladesh, we conducted a randomized controlled trial which found arsenic educational interventions when combined with fee-based water arsenic testing programs led to nearly all households buying an arsenic test for their drinking water sources (93%) compared with only 53% when fee-based arsenic testing alone was offered. The aim of the present study was to build on the findings of this trial by investigating prospectively the psychological factors that were most strongly associated with switching to arsenic-safe wells in response to these interventions. Our theoretical framework was the RANAS (risk, attitude, norm, ability, and self-regulation) model of behavior change. In the multivariate logistic regression model of 285 baseline unsafe well users, switching to an arsenic-safe water source was significantly associated with increased instrumental attitude (odds ratio [OR] = 9.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.85, 45.00]), descriptive norm (OR = 34.02; 95% CI = [6.11, 189.45]), coping planning (OR = 11.59; 95% CI = [3.82, 35.19]), and commitment (OR = 10.78; 95% CI = [2.33, 49.99]). In addition, each additional minute from the nearest arsenic-safe drinking water source reduced the odds of switching to an arsenic-safe well by more than 10% (OR = 0.89; 95% CI = [0.87, 0.92]). Future arsenic mitigation programs should target these behavioral determinants of switching to arsenic-safe water sources.