Browsing by Author "Haun, Jolie N."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Outcomes of a Remotely Delivered Complementary and Integrative Health Partnered Intervention to Improve Chronic Pain and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: Randomized Controlled Trial
    (JMIR, 2024-10-18) Haun, Jolie N.; Fowler, Christopher A.; Venkatachalam, Hari H.; Alman, Amy C.; Ballistrea, Lisa M.; Schneider, Tali; Benzinger, Rachel C.; Melillo, Christine; Alexander, Neil B.; Klanchar, S. Angel; Lapcevic, William A.; Bair, Matthew J.; Taylor, Stephanie L.; Murphy, Jennifer L.; French, Dustin D.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Nonpharmacological interventions for veterans are needed to help them manage chronic pain and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Complementary and integrative health (CIH) interventions such as Mission Reconnect (MR) seek to provide veterans with the option of a partnered, self-directed intervention that teaches CIH skills remotely to support symptom management. Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the physical, psychological, and social outcomes of a self-directed mobile- and web-based CIH intervention for veterans with comorbid chronic pain and PTSD and their partners and qualitatively examine their MR user experience. Methods: A sample of veteran-partner dyads (n=364) were recruited to participate in a mixed methods multisite waitlist control randomized controlled trial to measure physical, psychological, and social outcomes, with pain as the primary outcome and PTSD, depression, stress, sleep, quality of life, and relationships as secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models were constructed for primary and secondary patient-reported outcomes. The quantitative analysis was triangulated using qualitative interviews from a subsample of dyads (n=35) to examine participants' perceptions of their program experience. Results: Dyads were randomized to 2 groups: intervention (MR; 140/364, 38.5%) and waitlist control (136/364, 37.4%). No significant change was observed in overall pain, sleep, PTSD, quality of life, relationship satisfaction, overall self-compassion, or compassion for others. A significant reduction in pain interference in mood (P=.008) and sleep (P=.008) was observed among the veteran MR group that was not observed in the waitlist control group. We also observed a positive effect of the MR intervention on a reduction in negative affect associated with pain (P=.049), but this effect did not exceed the adjusted significance threshold (P=.01). Significant improvements were also observed for partners in the affection (P=.007) and conflict (P=.001) subdomains of the consensus and satisfaction domains. In contrast to quantitative results, qualitative data indicated that intervention impacts included improved sleep and reduced pain, anxiety, and stress and, in contrast to the survey data, overall improvement in PTSD symptoms and social relationships. Participants' overall impressions of MR highlight usability and navigation, perceptions on packaging and content, and barriers to and facilitators of MR use. Conclusions: Adjunctive CIH-based modalities can be delivered using web and mobile apps but should be developed and tailored using established best practices. MR may be beneficial for veterans with pain and PTSD and their partners. Further pragmatic trials and implementation efforts are warranted.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Provider Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to Identifying, Perceiving, and Seeking Healthcare for Chronic Pain After TBI: A Qualitative NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2024) Nakase-Richardson, Risa; Cotner, Bridget A.; Agtarap, Stephanie D.; Martin, Aaron M.; Ching, Deveney; O’Connor, Danielle R.; Tweed, Amanda; Haun, Jolie N.; Hanks, Robin A.; Bergquist, Thomas F.; Hammond, Flora M.; Zafonte, Ross D.; Hoffman, Jeanne M.; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine
    Objective: Identify determinants to chronic pain healthcare for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) informed by an Access to Care Framework. Findings related to the Access Framework's core domains of identifying a need, perceptions of the need, and seeking healthcare are reported. Setting: Community. Participants: Healthcare providers (n = 63) with 2 or more years of experience treating persons with TBI interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. Design: Descriptive, qualitative study. Main measures: Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access Framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the domains of identifying healthcare needs, perceptions of needs, and factors related to healthcare seeking from the supply and demand perspective. Results: For the overall sample, 14 facilitators and 6 barriers were endorsed by more than 20% of the provider cohort. Top facilitators included on-site availability of needed resources and treatments (94%), adequate time and provider capability to ensure patient comprehension of diagnosis and treatment plans (83%), and establishing patient motivation and buy-in with the treatment plan (75%). Barriers most endorsed included policies impacting access (46%), wait times for services (41%), and patient uncertainty regarding telehealth commonly due to cognitive and physical challenges (37%). Unique determinants are reported across civilian versus Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems and different provider types. Conclusion: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatments for persons with TBI. Results will inform future interventions at the systems, patient, and policy levels of healthcare that can be tailored to healthcare settings (VA, Civilian) and types of providers (rehabilitation therapists, psychologists, and medical). Evidence-informed interventions may help minimize healthcare disparities experienced by persons with TBI and facilitate access to high-quality, evidence-informed chronic pain care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Provider Perspectives of Facilitators and Barriers to Reaching and Utilizing Chronic Pain Healthcare for Persons with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Qualitative NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2024) Nakase-Richardson, Risa; Cotner, Bridget A.; Martin, Aaron M.; Agtarap, Stephanie D.; Tweed, Amanda; Esterov, Dmitry; O’Connor, Danielle R.; Ching, Deveney; Haun, Jolie N.; Hanks, Robin A.; Bergquist, Thomas F.; Hammond, Flora M.; Zafonte, Ross D.; Hoffman, Jeanne M.; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine
    Objective: To identify facilitators and barriers to reaching and utilizing chronic pain treatments for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) organized around an Access to Care framework, which includes dimensions of access to healthcare as a function of supply (ie, provider/system) and demand (ie, patient) factors for a specified patient population. Setting: Community. Participants: Clinicians (n = 63) with experience treating persons with TBI were interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. Design: Descriptive, qualitative study. Main measures: Semistructured open-ended interview of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access to Care framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the core domains (reaching care, utilizing care) and relevant subdimensions from the supply (affordability of providing care, quality, coordination/continuity, adequacy) and demand (ability to pay, adherence, empowerment, caregiver support) perspective. Results: Themes from provider interviews focused on healthcare reaching and healthcare utilization resulted in 19 facilitators and 9 barriers reaching saturation. The most themes fell under the utilization core domain, with themes identified that impact the technical and interpersonal quality of care and care coordination/continuity. Accessibility and availability of specialty care and use of interdisciplinary team that permitted matching patients to treatments were leading thematic facilitators. The leading thematic barrier identified primarily by medical providers was cognitive disability, which is likely directly linked with other leading barriers including high rates of noncompliance and poor follow-up in health care. Medical and behavioral health complexity was also a leading barrier to care and potentially interrelated to other themes identified. Conclusion: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning for this complex population to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatment. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of individuals with TBI/caregivers to inform interventions to improve access to chronic pain treatment for persons with TBI.