Junior Recital

List of performers and performances

Evaluation of a peer coach-led intervention to improve pain symptoms (ECLIPSE): Rationale, study design, methods, and sample characteristics

Chronic pain is prevalent, costly, and a leading cause of disability. Pain self-management (i.e., employing self-management strategies including behavioral modifications) is an effective, evidence-based treatment. However, implementation and delivery of a pain self-management model is challenging because of time and resources. Peer supported pain self-management offers a promising approach to implementing pain self-management programs using fewer clinical resources. Evaluation of a Peer Coach-Led Intervention for the Improvement of Pain Symptoms (ECLIPSE) is a randomized controlled trial testing effectiveness of peer coach-delivered pain self-management intervention versus controls receiving a class on pain and pain self-management. ECLIPSE is a Hybrid Type 1 study testing effectiveness while examining implementation factors. ECLIPSE enrolled 215 veterans randomly assigned to the peer coaching (N = 120) or control (N = 95) arm. The peer coaching intervention lasts 6 months, with patient-peer coach pairs instructed to talk twice per month. Coaches attend initial training, are provided a detailed training manual, and attend monthly booster sessions. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 9 months. The primary outcome is overall pain (intensity and interference), measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes are self-efficacy, social support, pain catastrophizing, patient activation, health-related quality of life, and health care utilization. To maximize implementation potential of pain self-management, innovative delivery methods are needed that do not require additional resources from healthcare teams. A novel and promising approach is a peer-coaching model, in which patients who are successfully managing their pain offer information, ongoing support, and advice to other patients with pain

Peer Support for Self-Management of Chronic Pain: the Evaluation of a Peer Coach-Led Intervention to Improve Pain Symptoms (ECLIPSE) Trial

Background: Pain self-management is an effective, evidence-based treatment for chronic pain. Peer support, in which patients serve as coaches for other patients, has been effective in other chronic conditions and is a potentially promising approach to implementing pain self-management programs using fewer clinical resources. Objective: To test a peer coach-delivered pain self-management program for chronic pain. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Participants: Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Intervention: Intervention patients were assigned a trained peer coach for 6 months. Coaches, who were volunteers, were asked to contact their assigned patients, either by phone or in person, twice per month. Coaches and patients were given an intervention manual to guide sessions. The control group was offered a 2-hour pain self-management class. Main measures: The primary outcome was total pain, assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, self-efficacy, social support, patient activation, health-related quality of life, and healthcare utilization. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 months, and 9 months. Key results: Two hundred fifteen patients enrolled (120 intervention, 95 control). Adherence to intervention protocol was low, with only 13% of patients reporting having at least the recommended 12 peer coach meetings over the 6-month intervention. BPI total decreased from baseline to 6 months and baseline to 9 months in both groups. At 9 months, this change was statistically significant (intervention, - 0.40, p = 0.018; control, - 0.47, p = 0.006). There was not a statistically significant difference between groups on BPI at either time point. No secondary outcomes improved significantly in either group after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Conclusions: Patients randomized to peer support did not differ from control patients on primary and secondary outcomes. Other peer support models that do not rely on volunteers might be more effective

Association between Policy Changes for Oxygen Saturation Alarm Settings and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality in Infants Born Very Preterm

ObjectiveTo determine the impact of policy changes for pulse oximetry oxygen saturation (SpO2) alarm limits on neonatal mortality and morbidity among infants born very preterm.Study designThis was a retrospective cohort study of infants born very preterm in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Infants were classified based on treatment at a hospital with an SpO2 alarm policy change and study epoch (before vs after policy change). We used a generalized linear mixed model to determine the effect of hospital group and epoch on the primary outcomes of mortality and severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and secondary outcomes of necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and any ROP.ResultsThere were 3809 infants in 10 hospitals with an SpO2 alarm policy change and 3685 infants in 9 hospitals without a policy change. The nature of most policy changes was to narrow the SpO2 alarm settings. Mortality was lower in hospitals without a policy change (aOR 0.63; 95% CI 0.50-0.80) but did not differ between epochs in policy change hospitals. The odds of bronchopulmonary dysplasia were greater for hospitals with a policy change (aOR 1.65; 95% CI 1.36-2.00) but did not differ for hospitals without a policy change. Severe ROP and necrotizing enterocolitis did not differ between epochs for either group. The adjusted odds of any ROP were lower in recent years in both hospital groups.ConclusionsChanging SpO2 alarm policies was not associated with reduced mortality or increased severe ROP among infants born very preterm