Results Summary

What was the research about?

Doctors often prescribe opioids to treat chronic pain that lasts for months or years. But these medicines can be risky. Patients may misuse, become addicted to, or take too many opioids at once. Increasing patients’ activation, or their ability to manage their health, may be one way to lower opioid risks while helping patients manage their pain.

In this study, the research team tested a program to improve patient activation for patients who use prescription opioids to manage chronic pain. The program included group sessions with a therapist on topics like

  • Taking an active role in managing pain
  • Managing pain without opioids
  • Using online patient portals and other technology to help manage care
  • Talking with doctors about ways to manage pain

The research team also wanted to see if this program improved patients’ mental and physical health and their use of healthcare resources and opioids, compared to patients that weren’t in the program.

What were the results?

After 12 months, the research team found no difference in patient activation between patients who were in the program and those who weren’t. But patients in the program reported

  • Fewer cases of moderate to severe depression
  • Better physical and mental health
  • Better ability to cope with pain through exercise
  • Higher rates of using an online portal to check lab results and access health resources

Patients who were in the program and those that weren’t reduced their prescription opioid use by a similar amount.

Who was in the study?

The study included 376 patients with chronic pain who received care at two large primary care clinics in California. Patients had been taking opioids about three times per week for at least three months. Of these patients, 68 percent were white, 17 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were African American, 5 percent were Asian, and 4 percent were Native American. The average age was 60, and 58 percent were women.

What did the research team do?

The research team assigned about half the patients by chance to a program that taught activation and pain management skills. Patients in the program went to four 90-minute group sessions with a therapist. They still got usual care from their doctors. The other half of the patients received usual care from their doctors.

The research team talked to patients by phone and looked at their health records 6 and 12 months after the study began.

What were the limits of the study?

The study only included patients in the program who could attend the sessions in person. The results may not apply to those who can’t attend in-person sessions, like patients with more complex health problems.

Future studies could test ways to use the program with those who can’t attend in person, such as online or by smartphone. Future research could also test programs to help doctors talk with patients about opioids and other ways to manage pain.

How can people use the results?

Clinics can consider these results when looking at ways to lower the risks of opioid use for patients with chronic pain.

Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

Peer reviewers commented, and the researchers made changes or provided responses. The comments and responses included the following:

  • The reviewers said the study should emphasize the lack of significant effects in the primary outcome measure before discussing any significant findings in secondary outcomes. The researchers updated the report to do so.
  • The reviewers noted that given the large number of secondary outcomes measured, positive results should be interpreted with caution. In particular, they expressed concern because the analyses for these outcomes were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The researchers revised the report to highlight null results and introduce additional notes of caution.
  • The reviewers recommended including additional detail to help explain the meaningfulness of the results, beyond stating the statistical significance with a P value. The researchers added 95% confidence intervals for the key outcome estimates, providing more precision around the significance of the results. The researchers noted that many of their patient-reported scales did not have clinically relevant units that could be reported.
  • Some reviewers expressed concern that the study encouraged chronic care patients to curtail opioid use, which might not be clinically appropriate. The researchers responded that their intervention did not make clinical recommendations and did not aim to discourage opioid use. The researchers explained that instead they aimed to empower patients to communicate with providers and explore alternative ways to manage pain. The researchers said they used input from patient advisors in trying to develop a balanced curriculum for their intervention.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Cynthia Campbell, PhD, MPH
Kaiser Foundation Research Institute
$1,903,202
10.25302/10.2019.IHS.131008734
Prescription Opioid Management in Chronic Pain Patients: A Patient-Centered Activation Intervention

Key Dates

July 2014
September 2018
2014
2018

Study Registration Information

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
Populations Populations PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders. View Glossary
Funding Opportunity Type
Intervention Strategy Intervention Strategies PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care. View Glossary
Research Priority Area
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: January 25, 2023