Sluka, Kathleen A.

Abstract Pain treatments have modest effects. Health outcomes might be improved if treatments are matched to mechanisms underlying the persistence and biopsychosocial impact of an individual's pain. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines 3 mechanistic pain descriptors presumed to involve different mechanisms—nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic. Although treatments to address each descriptor have been proposed, there is no consensus on how to assign descriptors to clinical presentations. A recent consensus identified candidate clinical features to discriminate between descriptors in clinical practice and research. These need refinement to progress towards a tool. This study aimed to determine the rank and relative weight of identified clinical features to aid discrimination between mechanistic pain descriptors. Candidate clinical features (n = 196) were refined by the IASP Terminology Task Force to converge similar and remove redundant features. The Task Force (n = 24) and an expert panel (n = 39) ranked features using 1000minds conjoint analysis software and assigned weights based on discrete pairwise choices. Participants nominated from pairs of scenarios, which most likely indicated that pain aligned predominantly to a descriptor. Highest ranked features for neuropathic and nociplastic pain were aligned with IASP Clinical Criteria. Criteria for nociceptive pain have not been established. A ranked list of features shared by 2 mechanisms (indicating mixed mechanisms) was also identified. This study identified expert consensus on the highest ranked clinical features with potential to discriminate between pain descriptors, reflective of different underlying mechanisms. This study extends current frameworks by identifying and refining key discriminators for future operationalisation and validation.

Abstract Background The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory supports the design and conduct of 31 embedded pragmatic clinical trials, and many of these trials use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide valuable information about the patients' health and wellness. Often these trials enroll medically underserved patients, including people with incomes below the federal poverty threshold, racial or ethnic minority groups, or rural or frontier communities. Objectives In this series of trial case reports, we provide lessons learned about collecting PROMs in these populations. Unbiased collection of PROM data is critical to increase the generalizability of trial outcomes and to address health inequities. Use of electronic health records (EHRs) and other digital modes of PROM administration has gained traction. However, engagement with these modes is often low among populations prone to disparity due to lower digital proficiency, device access, and uptake of EHR portals and web interfaces. Methods To maximize the completeness and representativeness of their trial outcome data, study teams tested a range of strategies to improve PROM response rates with emphasis on disparities prone and underserved patient groups. This manuscript describes the approaches, their implementation, and the targeted populations. Conclusion Optimized PROM collection required hybrid approaches with multiple outreach modes, high-touch methods, creativity in promoting digital uptake, multimodal participant engagement, and text messaging.