Managing Chronic Pain in Primary Care: It Really Does Take a Village
Abstract: Some healthcare systems are relieving primary care providers (PCPs) of “the burden” of managing chronic pain and opioid prescribing, instead offloading chronic pain management to pain specialists. Last year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a biopsychosocial approach to pain management that discourages opioid use and promotes exercise therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and non-opioid medications as first-line patient-centered, multi-modal treatments best delivered by an interdisciplinary team. In the private sector, interdisciplinary pain management services are challenging to assemble, separate from primary care and not typically reimbursed. In contrast, in a fully integrated health care system like the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), interdisciplinary clinics already exist, and one such clinic, the Integrated Pain Team (IPT) clinic, integrates and co-locates pain-trained PCPs, a psychologist and a pharmacist in primary care. The IPT clinic has demonstrated significant success in opioid risk reduction. Unfortunately, proposed legislation threatens to dismantle aspects of the VA such that these interdisciplinary services may be eliminated. This Perspective explains why it is critical not only to maintain interdisciplinary pain services in VHA, but also to consider disseminating this model to other health care systems in order to implement patient-centered, guideline-concordant care more broadly.
Abstract: Background: Exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) during military service can lead to moral injury (MI) outcomes and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). This longitudinal study examined the relationships between PMIE exposure, MI outcomes, and PTSS among Israeli combat veterans, and the potential protective role of dispositional forgiveness in these associations. Method: Participants were 169 Israeli combat veterans who participated in a six-year longitudinal study with four measurement points (T1: 12 months before enlistment, T2: Six months following enlistment- pre-deployment, T3: 18 months following enlistment- post-deployment, and T4: 28 months following discharge). Participants’ characteristics were assessed via semi-structured interviews (T1) and validated self-report measures (T2-T4) between 2019-2024. Results: Approximately 36% of participants reported exposure to PMIEs during service, with 13% exceeding the clinical threshold for probable PTSD at T4. PMIE-Betrayal at T3 was positively associated with MI outcomes of shame and trust violation at T4. The indirect effect of PMIEs on PTSS through MI outcome-Shame depended on forgiveness levels. Among veterans with low forgiveness, higher exposure to PMIE-Betrayal was associated with increased MI shame, which was linked to more severe PTSS. Conversely, for those with high forgiveness, exposure to PMIE-Self and Other was associated with decreased MI shame and subsequently reduced PTSS. Conclusion: Dispositional forgiveness moderates the relationship between PMIE exposure and MI outcomes, particularly shame, which mediates the development of PTSS. These findings highlight forgiveness as a potential target for intervention in treating moral injury and preventing PTSS among combat veterans.