Cited by 330Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceChronic Disease Management Strategies

Collaborative Care for Chronic Pain in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Dobscha, Steven K., Corson, Kathryn, Perrin, Nancy A., Hanson, Ginger C., Leibowitz, Ruth Q., Doak, Melanie N., Dickinson, Kathryn C., Sullivan, Mark D. +1 more·2009·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Chronic pain is common in primary care patients and is associated with distress, disability, and increased health care use. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a collaborative intervention can improve chronic pain-related outcomes, including comorbid depression severity, in a Department of Veterans Affairs primary care setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster randomized controlled trial of a collaborative care assistance with pain treatment intervention vs treatment as usual at 5 primary care clinics of 1 Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Forty-two primary care clinicians were randomized to the assistance with pain treatment intervention group or the treatment as usual group. The 401 patients had musculoskeletal pain diagnoses, moderate or greater pain intensity, and disability lasting 12 weeks or longer and were assigned to the same treatment groups as their clinicians. Recruitment occurred from January 2006 to January 2007 and follow-up concluded in January 2008. INTERVENTION: Assistance with pain treatment included a 2-session clinician education program, patient assessment, education and activation, symptom monitoring, feedback and recommendations to clinicians, and facilitation of specialty care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes over 12 months in pain-related disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, range of 0-24), pain intensity (Chronic Pain Grade [CPG] Pain Intensity subscale, range of 0-100), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 [PHQ-9], range of 0-27), measured as beta coefficients (difference in slopes in points per month). RESULTS: Intervention patients had a mean (SD) of 10.6 (4.5) contacts with the assistance with pain treatment team. Compared with the patients receiving treatment as usual, intervention patients showed greater improvements in pain-related disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire beta, -0.101 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -0.163 to -0.040]; P = .004 and CPG Pain Intensity subscale beta, -0.270 [95% CI, -0.480 to -0.061]; P = .01). Among patients with baseline depression (PHQ-9 score > or = 10), there was greater improvement in depression severity in patients receiving the intervention compared with patients receiving treatment as usual (PHQ-9 beta, -0.177 [95% CI, -0.295 to -0.060]; P = .003). The differences in scores between baseline and 12 months for the assistance with pain treatment intervention group and the treatment as usual group, respectively, were -1.4 vs -0.2 for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, -4.7 vs -0.6 for the CPG Pain Intensity subscale, and -3.7 vs -1.2 for PHQ-9. CONCLUSION: The assistance with pain treatment collaborative intervention resulted in modest but statistically significant improvement in a variety of outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00129480.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.377

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dobscha, S. K., Corson, K., Perrin, N. A., Hanson, G. C., Leibowitz, R. Q., Doak, M. N., Dickinson, K. C., Sullivan, M. D., & Gerrity, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Portland VA Medical Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Dobscha, Steven K.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2009-03-25
Volume
301
Issue
12
Pages
1242
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2020229129
Cited by
330
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 27
FWCI
19.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
chronic pain, collaborative care, primary care, musculoskeletal pain, pain-related disability, pain intensity, depression severity, clinician education, patient activation, specialist referral, veterans, Department of Veterans Affairs
MeSH terms
Aged, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Chronic Disease, Depression, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Pain, Pain Measurement, Patient Care Team, Patient Education as Topic, Primary Health Care, Severity of Illness Index, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Comorbidity, Patient-Centered Care, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review