Cited by 9Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid Use

Evaluation of a non‐pharmacological interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation and functional restoration program for chronic pain in veterans

Open access
Ward, Ralph, Rauch, Sheila A. M., Axon, Robert Neal, Saenger, Michael S.·2023·Health Services Research

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a quality improvement evaluation of the Empower Veterans Program (EVP), an interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation/functional restoration program option for functional restoration for high‐impact chronic pain, offered in a large metro‐area Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system. Data Sources: VHA Corporate Data Warehouse electronic medical record data for patients treated by EVP between 2015 and 2019. Evaluation Design: This retrospective design first compared EVP patients considered engaged or not engaged in completing treatment in terms of demographic characteristics and post‐treatment changes in clinical measures related to opioid use and mental health. We then compared mortality risk between matched groups of treated and untreated patients with chronic pain and concurrent opioid prescriptions using propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards methods. “Treated” in the matched groups was defined as any level of EVP participation (i.e., both engaged and not engaged). Data Collection/Extraction Methods: We first identified 1053 EVP patients with 1 year of pre‐and post‐treatment follow‐time and determined their engagement level. From those with chronic pain and prescription opioids, we matched 237 EVP patients to 375 untreated patients. Principal Findings: Engaged patients (57.4% of treated patients), were somewhat older than the non‐engaged (mean age 57.1 vs. 53.7, Cohen's D = 0.30), and achieved lower mean PHQ9 depression scores in the post‐treatment year (9.2 vs. 10.6, Cohen's D = 0.20). Participation in EVP was associated with a 65% lower mortality risk among Veterans with chronic pain and opioid use when compared to the untreated patients: (HR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.75). Conclusions: EVP was associated with a large reduction in mortality risk for Veterans with both chronic pain and opioid use. This result could inform the decision process in a VA station or region when considering providing or expanding access to an interdisciplinary rehabilitation/functional restoration program for chronic pain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1475-6773.14062

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • This paper offers a PiPT framework for mindful movement that is evidence-based, theory-driven, and has real-world implementation with positive outcomes for an integrated approach to interdisciplinary pain care.

    “This paper offers a PiPT framework for mindful movement that is evidence-based, theory-driven, and has real-world implementation with positive outcomes for an integrated approach to interdisciplinary pain care.63,65,68”

    From Remotely Delivered Psychologically Informed Mindful Movement Physical Therapy for Pain Care: A Framework for Operationalization (2023) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Introduction describes an evidence-informed interdisciplinary program based on biopsychosocial models, and the Conclusions and Recommendations describe its mindful-movement component. The Results report positive outcomes for the program as a whole. Our copy does not present a PiPT framework or establish outcomes specifically for mindful movement; page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ward, R., Rauch, S. A. M., Axon, R. N., & Saenger, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Ward, Ralph
Venue
Health Services Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-10-10
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
365-374
ISSN
  • 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-6773
OpenAlex
W4294989825
Cited by
9
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
chronic pain, veterans, interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation, functional restoration, prescription opioid use, mortality risk, depression, treatment engagement, non-pharmacological pain management, Veterans Health Administration
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Humans, Middle Aged, Opioid-Related Disorders, Retrospective Studies, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans, Chronic Pain

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