Alesha C. King’s research while affiliated with Memorial University of Newfoundland and other places

Background The Power Over Pain (POP) Portal is a digital platform that provides people living with pain (PLWP) flexible access to chronic pain self-management resources. Aims To (1) determine the feasibility of an adequately-powered multisite trial of the POP Portal in tertiary settings; (2) understand the acceptability and usability of the POP Portal; and (3) explore clinical effectiveness among PLWP awaiting a first visit to a tertiary care pain clinic. Methods Mixed-methods pilot-feasibility study to inform a future definitive trial. Feasibility was assessed using recruitment and retention rates. Acceptability, usability, and patient outcomes were measured using validated surveys completed at baseline and 3-month follow-up, and semistructured interviews conducted after 3-month follow-up. Results Forty-one participants completed follow-up surveys and nine completed interviews. We reached a recruitment and retention rate of 83.75% and 61.19%, respectively. There was a reduction in pain interference (p = .024) and belief in a medical cure (p = .033) after using POP for 3 months. Surveys and interviews indicate PLWP were satisfied with the POP Portal, and it had good usability. Some participants indicated that POP was overwhelming, and certain resources were difficult to access, indicating that modifications could be made to improve ease of use. Conclusions The POP Portal was deemed acceptable with good usability; however, modification may be made for improvement. A definitive trial can proceed with enhancements to the portal, modification of the protocol, and close monitoring.

Objective Chronic pain affects approximately 7.6 million Canadians and access to care remains an issue. The Power Over Pain (POP) Portal offers immediate access to evidence-based resources ranging from low- (e.g. education, self-management), to high- (e.g. individual counseling) intensity. We explored the POP Portal's acceptability, usability, and perceived usefulness among patients newly referred to a tertiary care pain clinic. Methods We used a descriptive, qualitative approach with a prospective cohort of 60 adult patients recently referred to The Ottawa Hospital Pain Clinic. Patients were offered an orientation session and asked to participate in a seven-week follow-up interview. Data were thematically analyzed in an iterative process, whereby responses were reviewed and coded by two members of the research team. Results Of the 60 patients referred to the POP Portal by clinic clerks, 45 participated in the orientation session, and 40 completed a four-week follow-up. All 40 patients had used the POP Portal and recommended that we continue to offer the POP Portal to patients awaiting care. We identified overarching themes of acceptability (five subthemes), usability (ten subthemes), accessibility (three subthemes), and patient value of the POP Portal (three subthemes). This includes (1) the POP Portal provides easy access to chronic pain resources; (2) the POP Portal is helpful in developing an understanding of chronic pain; and (3) improvements to the POP Portal are needed to increase usability and foster a user-friendly experience. Conclusions The POP Portal offers accessible and diverse resources for people living with pain awaiting a tertiary care consultation; however, patients would like to see resources specific to diagnosis. Improvements are suggested to allow greater increase the POP Portal usability.

This study examines the process of implementing One-at-a-Time (OAAT; i.e., single-session) therapy into child and youth addiction and mental health services in New Brunswick. The implementation process was retrospectively mapped onto implementation science frameworks. Providers were recruited to participate in research associated with the system change, and completed surveys to assess readiness for implementation. Client satisfaction and system-outcomes were measured through surveys and system indicators, respectively. Key implementation considerations included age of consent for services, implementation within an integrated service delivery model, and mapping the client journey to conceptualize changes in service delivery. Providers (N = 214) felt that OAAT therapy was acceptable and appropriate to implement into practice, and would lead to observable short-term outcomes. During the implementation (April–December 2022), 2266 sessions were delivered, resulting in a 62% waitlist reduction. Most clients who completed the satisfaction survey (N = 518) reported benefit. This study elucidates the successful implementation of OAAT therapy for children and youth, and can serve as a heuristic for comparable practice change initiatives.

Background: Providers who work within addiction and mental health (A&MH) services in New Brunswick (NB), Canada completed training in Stepped Care 2.0 and One-at-a-Time (OAAT) therapy as part of a provincial practice change initiative to implement a provincial stepped care model. The present study aimed to identify: (1) the perceived acceptability and feasibility of the SC2.0 model; (2) the perceived benefits, barriers, and facilitators to implement SC2.0 in practice; and (3) perceived impacts on clinical practice. Methods: This is a mixed-methods observational implementation study. Quantitative surveys were completed after training courses. Open-ended responses were collected after completion of SC2.0 training. A subset of providers who completed surveys were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to describe results from surveys. Open-ended responses and semi-structured interviews were compiled and thematically synthesized in an iterative process using a grounded theory framework. Quantitative and qualitative data were triangulated to build an in-depth understanding of provider perceptions. Results: 316 providers completed surveys and responded to open-ended prompts. Interviews were completed with 28 of those providers. SC2.0 was deemed to be acceptable, a suitable fit, and feasible to implement. Perceived benefits included: (1) timely access to services; (2) increased practice efficiency; and (3) increased availability of services. Perceived barriers included: (1) insufficient availability of resources to populate a SC2.0 continuum of care; (2) provider complacency with their current practice; and (3) difficulty for clients to accept and adjust to change. Conclusions: Identifying the perceived benefits, facilitators, and barriers to adopting stepped care in practice can lead to targeted implementation strategies and the collection of data that can inform continuous improvement cycles.