A Small Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial Comparing Mobile and Traditional Pain Coping Skills Training Protocols for Cancer Patients with Pain

Somers, Tamara J.; Kelleher, Sarah A.; Westbrook, Kelly; Kimmick, Gretchen; Shelby, Rebecca A.; Abernethy, Amy Pickar; Keefe, Francis J.

doi:10.1155/2016/2473629

Cited by 44 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…mPCST also includes a website that provides patients with mPCST materials and information, social networking, and daily assessments used to personalize sessions. In two small pilot trials (ie, single arm and randomized controlled trial [RCT]), mPCST was found to be feasible, acceptable, engaging, low burden, and demonstrated pretreatment to posttreatment improvements in pain and other pain‐related outcomes . The RCT (N = 30) compared mPCST with a traditional in‐person intervention and found that participants in both groups reported improvements in pain, physical symptoms, and self‐efficacy for pain management suggesting mPCST, a potentially highly accessible intervention, may be at least as efficacious as in‐person.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A behavioral cancer pain intervention: A randomized noninferiority trial comparing in‐person with videoconference delivery

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Behavioral cancer pain interventions are efficacious for improving important pain outcomes; yet, traditional in‐person delivery limits patient access. This study compared videoconference‐delivered mobile health pain coping skills training (mPCST) to in‐person pain coping skills training (PCST‐traditional). Methods This study was a randomized, noninferiority trial with cancer patients. Participants (N = 178) were randomly assigned to four, 45‐minute sessions of mPCST or PCST‐traditional. Session content focused on evidence‐based cognitive and behavioral pain management skills. Assessments were completed at baseline, posttreatment, and 3‐month posttreatment, and included measures of primary intervention outcomes (ie, pain severity and pain interference) and secondary intervention outcomes (ie, physical symptoms, psychological distress, physical well‐being, and self‐efficacy). The main study aim tested whether mPCST was more accessible (defined as feasibility, acceptability, patient burden, and engagement) than PCST‐traditional. The second aim tested whether mPCST was noninferior to PCST‐traditional. Results mPCST demonstrated significantly greater feasibility (ie, attrition, adherence, and time to completion) than PCST‐traditional. Both groups reported similar patient burden and engagement as well as a high degree of acceptability. All intervention outcomes demonstrated noninferiority at posttreatment and, with the exception of physical symptoms, 3‐month posttreatment. Concerning the primary intervention outcomes, 95% CIs for the mean differences (d) were below the noninferiority margin of 1 for pain severity (posttreatment d = 0.09, 95% CI, −0.63‐0.81; 3 months d = −0.43 95% CI, −1.22‐0.36) and pain interference (posttreatment d = −0.11, 95% CI, −0.99‐0.76; 3 months d = −0.26 95% CI, −1.14‐0.62). Conclusion mPCST is highly accessible and noninferior to PCST‐traditional.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A behavioral cancer pain intervention: A randomized noninferiority trial comparing in‐person with videoconference delivery

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…exploring issues of usability and acceptability). 45,[99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113] Many focus specifically on the clinical use of Skype, 91,[114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123] either on its own or in combination with other technologies [e.g. WhatsApp (WhatsApp Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) messaging 124 or FaceTime 125,126 ].…”

Section: Evidence Relating To the Use Of Virtual Consultationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advantages and limitations of virtual online consultations in a NHS acute trust: the VOCAL mixed-methods study

Shaw

Wherton

Vijayaraghavan

et al. 2018

Health Serv Deliv Res

148

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 13/59/26. The contractual start date was in March 2015. The final report began editorial review in July 2017 and was accepted for publication in November 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health and Social Care. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Depar...

show abstract

“…While no specific safety issues or critical events were reported in any of the above studies, exclusion and/or withdrawal rates in some studies were high [18,23,25].…”

Section: Introduction Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Almost all previous research on video consultations in healthcare has either addressed the technical detail of the remote connection or undertaken a randomized controlled trial of virtual versus face-to-face consultations [13][14][15][16][17][18][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Such studies lend support to the conclusion that in selected patients, video consultations are non-inferior to face-to-face ones -but (often by their own admission) they leave unanswered the question of how to establish the service as a real-world option and/or move from a small-scale research or demonstration project to sustainable business-as-usual.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Randomized controlled trials have shown such consultations to be acceptable, safe and effective (and, when measured, to reduce patient-borne costs) in patients deemed clinically eligible in a range of conditions including adult and teenage diabetes [16][17][18], chronic kidney disease [19], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [20,21], mental health conditions [22,23], chronic pain [24][25][26], support after premature birth [27], support of patients in care homes [28], post-operative follow-up for orthopedics [29][30][31][32], plastic surgery [33] and prostate cancer [34].…”

Section: Introduction Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Real-World Implementation of Video Outpatient Consultations at Macro, Meso, and Micro Levels: Mixed-Method Study (Preprint)

Greenhalgh¹,

Shaw²,

Wherton³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND There is much interest in virtual consultations using video technology. Randomized controlled trials have shown video consultations to be acceptable, safe, and effective in selected conditions and circumstances. However, this model has rarely been mainstreamed and sustained in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE The study sought to (1) define good practice and inform implementation of video outpatient consultations and (2) generate transferable knowledge about challenges to scaling up and routinizing this service model. METHODS A multilevel, mixed-method study of Skype video consultations (micro level) was embedded in an organizational case study (meso level), taking account of national context and wider influences (macro level). The study followed the introduction of video outpatient consultations in three clinical services (diabetes, diabetes antenatal, and cancer surgery) in a National Health Service trust (covering three hospitals) in London, United Kingdom. Data sources included 36 national-level stakeholders (exploratory and semistructured interviews), longitudinal organizational ethnography (300 hours of observations; 24 staff interviews), 30 videotaped remote consultations, 17 audiotaped face-to-face consultations, and national and local documents. Qualitative data, analyzed using sociotechnical change theories, addressed staff and patient experience and organizational and system drivers. Quantitative data, analyzed via descriptive statistics, included uptake of video consultations by staff and patients and microcategorization of different kinds of talk (using the Roter interaction analysis system). RESULTS When clinical, technical, and practical preconditions were met, video consultations appeared safe and were popular with some patients and staff. Compared with face-to-face consultations for similar conditions, video consultations were very slightly shorter, patients did slightly more talking, and both parties sometimes needed to make explicit things that typically remained implicit in a traditional encounter. Video consultations appeared to work better when the clinician and patient already knew and trusted each other. Some clinicians used Skype adaptively to respond to patient requests for ad hoc encounters in a way that appeared to strengthen supported self-management. The reality of establishing video outpatient services in a busy and financially stretched acute hospital setting proved more complex and time-consuming than originally anticipated. By the end of this study, between 2% and 22% of consultations were being undertaken remotely by participating clinicians. In the remainder, clinicians chose not to participate, or video consultations were considered impractical, technically unachievable, or clinically inadvisable. Technical challenges were typically minor but potentially prohibitive. CONCLUSIONS Video outpatient consultations appear safe, effective, and convenient for patients in situations where participating clinicians judge them clinically appropriate, but such situations are a fraction of the overall clinic workload. As with other technological innovations, some clinicians will adopt readily, whereas others will need incentives and support. There are complex challenges to embedding video consultation services within routine practice in organizations that are hesitant to change, especially in times of austerity.

show abstract

A Small Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial Comparing Mobile and Traditional Pain Coping Skills Training Protocols for Cancer Patients with Pain

Cited by 44 publications

References 24 publications

A behavioral cancer pain intervention: A randomized noninferiority trial comparing in‐person with videoconference delivery

A behavioral cancer pain intervention: A randomized noninferiority trial comparing in‐person with videoconference delivery

Advantages and limitations of virtual online consultations in a NHS acute trust: the VOCAL mixed-methods study

Real-World Implementation of Video Outpatient Consultations at Macro, Meso, and Micro Levels: Mixed-Method Study (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About