Enhancing Motivation for Change in the Management of Chronic Painful Conditions: a Review of Recent Literature
Purpose of Review
The purpose of this review is to evaluate and summarize recent empirical research investigating motivational factors for management of chronic pain and headache disorders.
Research on motivation for non-pharmacological treatment of chronic pain and headache disorders has identified factors that influence initiation of and adherence to treatment. To address common factors that inhibit initiation of treatment (i.e., cost, time commitment), several electronic treatments have been developed. Self-efficacy is the most commonly studied psychosocial influence on treatment adherence, with evidence that it is positively correlated with adherence. Other studies have sought to improve adherence to treatment using motivational interviewing interventions.
There is currently limited research on how to enhance motivation for initial adherence to non-pharmacological treatment for chronic pain and headache disorders. Instead of enhancing motivation, researchers have looked to reduce barriers to treatment with electronic health treatments; however, many of these studies have focused on intervention feasibility, rather than efficacy or effectiveness. Numerous studies have identified a relationship between self-efficacy and treatment adherence. Although motivational interviewing interventions have been shown to improve adherence to treatment, there is little evidence that they improve treatment outcomes. Recommendations for further investigation include improving interventions to enhance accessibility and adherence to treatment with the goal of improving outcomes, as well as identifying ways to improve treatment initiation and adherence in patients who are currently engaged in long-term opioid therapy.
KeywordsMotivation Chronic pain Headache Treatment adherence
This study was funded by grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service (CIN 13-407), the Department of Veterans Affairs VISN1 (CDA 13-350), and from the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (RFA-AT-14-005).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Brett Ankawi, Robert D. Kerns, and Sara N. Edmond declare no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 5.National Institutes of Health. National Pain Strategy, a comprehensive population health-level strategy for pain. 2016.Google Scholar
- 6.Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Balderson BH, Cook AJ, Anderson ML, Hawkes RJ, et al. Effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction vs cognitive behavioral therapy or usual care on back pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315:1240–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Anderson RJ, Hurley RW, Staud R, Robinson ME. Cognitive-motivational influences on health behavior change in adults with chronic pain. Pain Med (United States). 2016;17:1079–93.Google Scholar
- 20.Wilson IR. Management of chronic pain through pain management programmes. Br Med Bull. 2017:1–10.Google Scholar
- 29.Hurley M, Dickson K, Hallett R, Grant R, Hauari H, Walsh N, et al. Exercise interventions and patient beliefs for people with hip, knee or hip and knee osteoarthritis: a mixed methods review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4.:1–164Google Scholar
- 40.•Minen MT, Torous J, Raynowska J, Piazza A, Grudzen C, Powers S, et al. Electronic behavioral interventions for headache: a systematic review. J Headache Pain. 2016;17:51–70. Systematic review of eHealth interventions in headache disorders. Google Scholar
- 44.•Heapy AA, Higgins DM, Goulet JL, La Chappelle KM, Driscoll MA, Czlapinski RA, et al. Interactive voice response-based self-management for chronic back pain: the COPES noninferiority randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:765–73. eHealth intervention compared to an in-person control group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar