"Listen to me, learn from me": a priority setting partnership for shaping interdisciplinary pain training to strengthen chronic pain care. Issue 11 (6th November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Slater, Helen; Jordan, Joanne E.; O'Sullivan, Peter B.; Schütze, Robert; Goucke, Roger; Chua, Jason; Browne, Allyson; Horgan, Ben; De Morgan, Simone; Briggs, Andrew M.
• Is Part Of: Pain. Volume 163:Issue 11(2022)
• Page Start: e1145
• Page End: e1163
• Publication Date: 2022-11-06
• Subjects: Chronic pain -- Lived experience -- Partnership -- Priority-setting -- Curricula -- Pain education; Pain -- Periodicals; Douleur -- Périodiques; Anesthésie -- Périodiques; Pain; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.0472
• DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002647
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0304-3959

Abstract

Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. This empirically derived framework strongly repositions shaping of health workforce training through a genuine partnership lens, strengthening training efforts to support high-quality, person-centred, chronic pain care. Abstract: What are the care-seeking priorities of people living with chronic pain and carers and how can these shape interdisciplinary workforce training to improve high-value pain care? Phase 1: Australian people living with chronic pain (n = 206; 90% female) and carers (n = 10; 40% female) described their pain care priorities (eDelphi, round 1). A coding framework was inductively derived from 842 pain care priorities (9 categories, 52 priorities), including validation; communication; multidisciplinary approaches; holistic care; partnerships; practitioner knowledge; self-management; medicines; and diagnosis. Phase 2: In eDelphi round 2, panellists (n = 170; valid responses) rated the importance (1 = less important; 9 = more important) of the represented framework. In parallel, cross-discipline health professionals (n = 267; 75% female) rated the importance of these same priorities. Applying the RAND-UCLA method (panel medians: 1-3: "not important, " 4-6: "equivocal, " or 7-9: "important"), "important" items were retained where the panel median score was >7 with panel agreement ≥70%, with 44 items (84.6%) retained. Specific workforce training targets included the following: empathic validation; effective, respectful, safe communication; and ensuring genuine partnerships in coplanning personalised care. Panellists and health professionals agreed or strongly agreed (95.7% and 95.2%, respectively) that this framework meaningfully reflected the importance in care seeking for pain. More than 74% of health professionals were fairly or extremely confident in their ability to support care priorities for 6 of 9 categories (66.7%). Phase 3: An interdisciplinary panel (n = 5) mapped an existing foundation-level workforce training program against the framework, identifying gaps and training targets. Recommendations were determined for framework adoption to genuinely shape, from a partnership perspective, Australian interdisciplinary pain training.