Developing consensus on core outcome sets of domains for acute, the transition from acute to chronic, recurrent/episodic, and chronic pain: results of the INTEGRATE-pain Delphi process

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordData sharing statement: Individual participant data that was collected throughout the research process from Delphi participants is not available to others. De-identified participant data was aggregated for analysis and presented in an anonymized format through tables in the article and supplement. All other research data is unavailable.Background: Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide among adults and effective treatment options remain elusive. Data harmonization efforts, such as through core outcome sets (COS), could improve care by highlighting cross-cutting pain mechanisms and treatments. Existing pain-related COS often focus on specific conditions, which can hamper data harmonization across various pain states. Methods: Our objective was to develop four overarching COS of domains/subdomains (i.e., what to measure) that transcend pain conditions within different pain categories. We hosted a meeting to assess the need for these four COS in pain research and clinical practice. Potential COS domains/subdomains were identified via a systematic literature review (SLR), meeting attendees, and Delphi participants. We conducted an online, three step Delphi process to reach a consensus on domains to be included in the four final COS. Survey respondents were identified from the SLR and pain-related social networks, including multidisciplinary health care professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience (PWLE) of pain. Advisory boards consisting of COS experts and PWLE provided advice throughout the process. Findings: Domains in final COS were generally related to aspects of pain, quality of life, and physical function/activity limitations, with some differences among pain categories. This effort was the first to generate four separate, overarching COS to encourage international data harmonization within and across different pain categories. Interpretation: The adoption of the COS in research and clinical practice will facilitate comparisons and data integration around the world and across pain studies to optimize resources, expedite therapeutic discovery, and improve pain care. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Join Undertaking; European Union Horizon 2020 research innovation program, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) provided funding for IMI-PainCare. RDT acknowledges grants from Esteve and TEVA.European Union Horizon 202

Effect of a perspective-taking intervention on the consideration of pain assessment and treatment decisions

Laura D Wandner,1 Calia A Torres,2 Emily J Bartley,1 Steven Z George,3 Michael E Robinson1 1Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, 3Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Objectives: Pain is often poorly managed, highlighting the need to better understand and treat patients' pain. Research suggests that pain is assessed and treated differently depending on patient sex, race, and/or age. Perspective-taking, whereby one envisions the perspective of another, has been found to reduce racial disparities in pain management. This study used virtual human (VH) technology to examine whether a perspective-taking intervention impacts pain management decisions. Methods: Ninety-six participants were randomized to an online treatment or control group and viewed 16 video clips of VHs with standardized levels of pain. Participants provided ratings on the VHs' pain intensity and their willingness to administer opioids to them. The intervention group received a brief perspective-taking intervention that consisted of having participants imagine how the patient's suffering could affect his/her life, whereas the control group was asked to wait for the next VH videos to load. A LENS model analysis was used to investigate both group level (nomothetic) and individual level (idiographic) decision policies. A LENS model of analysis is typically used as an analog method for capturing how groups of people and individuals use information in their environment to form judgments. Results: Nomothetic results found that participants rated pain higher and were more likely to prescribe opioids to VHs postintervention, irrespective of group. Idiographic results, however, found that the use of cues to make pain management decisions was mitigated by the perspective-taking group. The participants in the perspective-taking group were more likely to think about pain and the patients' perspective during the intervention, while control participants were more likely to reflect on the VHs' sex, race, or age. Conclusion: A brief intervention may alter participants' pain management decisions. These results indicate that a brief intervention might be an initial step toward aligning observers' pain management ratings with those of the patient. Future research is needed to replicate findings in a health care population. Keywords: pain management, perspective taking, virtual technolog

The influence of sex, race, and age on pain assessment and treatment decisions using virtual human technology: a cross-national comparison

Calia A Torres,1 Emily J Bartley,1 Laura D Wandner,1 Ashraf F Alqudah,2 Adam T Hirsh,3 Michael E Robinson11Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; 2Department of Psychology, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; 3Department of Psychology, Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USAPurpose: Studies in the United States have found that patients' sex, race, and age influence the pain assessment and treatment decisions of laypeople and medical professionals. However, there is limited research as to whether people of other nationalities make pain management decisions differently based on demographic characteristics. Therefore, the purpose of the following study was to compare pain assessment and treatment decisions of undergraduate students in Jordan and the United States as a preliminary examination of nationality as a potential proxy for cultural differences in pain decisions.Methods: Virtual human (VH) technology was used to examine the influences of patients' sex (male or female), race (light-skinned or dark-skinned), and age (younger or older) on students' pain management decisions. Seventy-five American and 104 Jordanian undergraduate students participated in this web-based study.Results: American and Jordanian students rated pain intensity higher in females and older adults and were more likely to recommend medical help to these groups, relative to males and younger adults. Furthermore, Jordanian participants rated pain intensity higher and were more likely to recommend medical help for all patient demographic groups (ie, sex, race, age) than American participants.Conclusion: This is the first cross-national study that compares pain decisions between undergraduate students. The results suggest that sex, race, and age cues are used in pain assessment and treatment by both Americans and Jordanians, with Jordanians more likely to rate pain higher and recommend medical help to patients. Additional research is needed to determine the cultural determinants of these differences.Keywords: pain management, pain disparities, nationality, stereotypes, biase

Race and pain: A dual injustice

The evidence presented in this chapter highlights the existence of a dual injustice-members of nondominant racial groups are more than likely to experience pain, while these same individuals are also more than likely to have their pain discounted by and undertreated by healthcare professionals. Evidence is presented from numerous national, racial, and ethnic contexts, and this chapter utilizes evidence that crosses historical, social, psychological, biological, and medical research. The antecedents, consequences, causes, and potential solutions to this dual injustice are examined and discussed with the recognition that the literal pain and suffering of people of color is at stake