Effectiveness of Models Used to Deliver Multimodal Care for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: a Rapid Evidence Review
Primary care providers (PCPs) face many system- and patient-level challenges in providing multimodal care for patients with complex chronic pain as recommended in some pain management guidelines. Several models have been developed to improve the delivery of multimodal chronic pain care. These models vary in their key components, and work is needed to identify which have the strongest evidence of clinically-important improvements in pain and function. Our objective was to determine which primary care-based multimodal chronic pain care models provide clinically relevant benefits, define key elements of these models, and identify patients who are most likely to benefit.
To identify studies, we searched MEDLINE® (1996 to October 2016), CINAHL, reference lists, and numerous other sources and consulted with experts. We used predefined criteria for study selection, data abstraction, internal validity assessment, and strength of evidence grading.
We identified nine models, evaluated in mostly randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The RCTs included 3816 individuals primarily from the USA. The most common pain location was the back. Five models primarily coupling a decision-support component—most commonly algorithm-guided treatment and/or stepped care—with proactive ongoing treatment monitoring have the best evidence of providing clinically relevant improvement in pain intensity and pain-related function over 9 to 12 months (NNT range, 4 to 13) and variable improvement in quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. The strength of the evidence was generally low, as each model was only supported by a single RCT with imprecise findings.
Multimodal chronic pain care delivery models coupling decision support with proactive treatment monitoring consistently provide clinically relevant improvement in pain and function. Wider implementation of these models should be accompanied by further evaluation of clinical and implementation effectiveness.
KEY WORDSmultimodal multidisciplinary musculoskeletal pain chronic pain rapid review
The VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) is funded by Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI). The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of QUERI. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US Government.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 1.Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education. Relieving pain in America: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.; 2011.Google Scholar
- 7.Rosenquist RW, Benzon HT, Connis RT, et al. Practice guidelines for chronic pain management: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Chronic Pain Management and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Anesthesiology. 2010;112(4):810–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Systems interventions to improve the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain: topic brief. 2015.Google Scholar
- 13.Hartling L, Guise J-M, Kato E, et al. EPC methods: an exploration of methods and context for the production of rapid reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2015.Google Scholar
- 14.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: 2014.Google Scholar
- 16.Peterson K, Anderson J, Bourne D, Mackey K, Helfand M. Evidence brief: effectiveness of models used to deliver multimodal care for chronic musculoskeletal pain. VA ESP Project #09–1992017 May 3, 2017. Available from: https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/chronicpain.cfm.
- 19.Sterne J, Higgins J, Reeves B. A Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: for non-randomized studies of interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI). 2014.Google Scholar
- 21.Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari M, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions for the effective health care program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: an update methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013.Google Scholar
- 46.Goertz CM, Salsbury SA, Vining RD, et al. Collaborative Care for Older Adults with low back pain by family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic (COCOA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials [Electronic Resource]. 2013;14:18.Google Scholar
- 47.Karp JF, Rollman BL, Reynolds CF, 3rd, et al. Addressing both depression and pain in late life: the methodology of the ADAPT study. Pain Medicine. 2012;13(3):405–18.Google Scholar
- 48.MacDougall P . Nova Scotia Chronic Pain Collaborative Care Network: a pilot study. 2011.Google Scholar
- 49.Krebs E. Comparative effectiveness of patient-centered strategies to improve pain management and opioid safety for veterans. 2016.Google Scholar
- 50.Debar LL. Collaborative Care for Chronic Pain in primary care. 2016.Google Scholar
- 51.Bair M. Care Management for the Effective Use of Opioids (CAMEO). 2015.Google Scholar