Objective: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an evidence-based treatment for improving functioning and pain intensity for people with chronic pain with extensive evidence of effectiveness. However, there has been relatively little investigation of the factors associated with successful implementation and uptake of CBT-CP, particularly clinician and system level factors. This formative evaluation examined barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation and uptake of CBT-CP from the perspective of CBT-CP clinicians and referring primary care clinicians. Methods: Qualitative interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were conducted at nine geographically diverse Veterans Affairs sites as part of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing synchronous, clinician-delivered CBT-CP and remotely delivered, technology-assisted CBT-CP. Analysis was informed by a grounded theory approach. Results: Twenty-six clinicians (CBT-CP clinicians = 17, primary care clinicians = 9) from nine VA medical centers participated in individual qualitative interviews conducted by telephone from April 2019 to August 2020. Four themes emerged in the qualitative interviews: (1) the complexity and variability of referral pathways across sites, (2) referring clinician's lack of knowledge about CBT-CP, (3) referring clinician's difficulty identifying suitable candidates for CBT-CP, and (4) preference for interventions that can be completed from home. Conclusions: This formative evaluation identified clinician and system barriers to widespread implementation of CBT-CP and allowed for refinement of the subsequent implementation of two forms of CBT-CP in an ongoing pragmatic trial. Identification of relative difference in barriers and facilitators in the two forms of CBT-CP may emerge more clearly in a pragmatic trial that evaluates how treatments perform in real-world settings and may provide important information to guide future system-wide implementation efforts.

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.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid prescribing and subsequent rates of serious harms have dramatically increased in the past two decades, yet there are still significant barriers to reduction of risky opioid regimens. This formative evaluation utilized a mixed-methods approach to identify barriers and factors that may facilitate the successful implementation of Primary Care-Integrated Pain Support (PIPS), a clinical program designed to support the reduction of risky opioid regimens while increasing the uptake of non-pharmacologic treatment modalities. METHODS: Eighteen Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees across three sites completed a survey consisting of the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale; a subset of these individuals (n=9) then completed a semi-structured qualitative phone interview regarding implementing PIPS within the VA. ORIC results were analyzed using descriptive statistics while interview transcripts were coded and sorted according to qualitative themes. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis based on ORIC indicated high levels of organizational readiness to implement PIPS. Interview analysis revealed several salient themes: system-level barriers such as tension among various pain management providers; patient-level barriers such as perception of support and tension between patient and provider; and facilitating factors of PIPS, such as the importance of the clinical pharmacist role. CONCLUSIONS: While organizational readiness for implementing PIPS appears high, modifications to our implementation facilitation strategy (e.g., establishing clinical pharmacists as champions; marketing PIPS to leadership as a way to improve VA opioid safety metrics) may improve capacity of the sites to implement PIPS successfully.