Zoom-Delivered Empowered Relief for Chronic Pain: Observational Longitudinal Pilot Study Exploring Feasibility and Pain-Related Outcomes in Patients on Long-Term Opioids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy often face barriers to accessing effective nonpharmacological treatments, including the burden of multiple sessions, lack of trained clinicians, and travel time. Empowered Relief (ER), a 2-hour, single-session pain relief skills class, can improve pain and quality of life among patients with chronic pain when delivered in person or virtually. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the impact of Zoom-delivered ER among people with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy. We assessed (1) the feasibility and acceptability of Zoom-delivered ER; (2) changes in pain and opioid use outcomes at 3 and 6 months after treatment; and (3) daily associations among pain, opioid dose, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) before and after treatment. METHODS: During the early COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted an uncontrolled pilot study of a Zoom-delivered ER among 60 adults (n=45, 76% female participants; n=52, 88% White participants) experiencing chronic pain who were receiving daily prescribed opioids (≥10 morphine-equivalent daily dose). Participants completed assessments at enrollment, before class, after class, 3 months after treatment, and 6 months after treatment. Furthermore, participants completed 2 daily assessment periods (spanning 14 consecutive days) before and after the class. We used a multilevel modeling approach to examine (1) the raw changes in PCS, average pain intensity, pain interference, and self-reported opioid dose at 3 and 6 months after treatment and (2) daily-level changes in average pain intensity and opioid dose before and after the class. RESULTS: Of the 60 participants enrolled, 41 (68%) attended the class and 24 (59% of the 41 class attendees) reported satisfaction with the Zoom-delivered class. PCS score was significantly reduced at 3 months (β=-3.49, P=.01; Cohen d=0.35) and 6 months after treatment (β=-3.61, P=.01; Cohen d=0.37), and pain intensity was significantly reduced at 3 months (β=-0.56, P=.01; Cohen d=0.39) compared to enrollment. There were no significant reductions in pain interference or opioid dose. Across daily assessments, higher daily pain catastrophizing was associated with worse daily pain (β=.42, P<.001) and higher self-reported opioid use (β=3.14, P<.001); daily pain intensity significantly reduced after the class (β=-.50, P<.001). People taking prescribed opioids as needed trended toward decreasing their daily opioid use after the class (β=-9.31, P=.02), although this result did not survive correction for multiplicity. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements to future Zoom-delivered ER iterations are needed to improve feasibility and acceptability among people with chronic pain and daily prescribed opioid use. Despite this, findings show a promising preliminary impact of the intervention on pain outcomes. A larger randomized controlled trial of Zoom-delivered ER among this patient population is currently under way.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".