Effectiveness of a Pain Assessment and Management Program for Respite Workers Supporting Children With Disabilities

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
This study investigates the impact of pain training delivery for respite care providers who support children with developmental disabilities on (a) pain assessment and management-related knowledge, (b) participant self-rated perceptions of the feasibility, confidence and skill in pain assessment and management, and (c) strategy use. Half of the participants will receive the pain training, while half will receive the training about family-centered care, and be offered the pain training after completion of the follow-up.

Detailed Description
-----------------
Background Information: Everyday pain is common in children with intellectual/developmental disabilities (I/DD). Inadequately managed pain in this population is a common problem, and this is likely due to these children's inability to communicate pain effectively. Unfortunately, many of these children are unable to accurately self-report or effectively communicate the pain experience. Thus, caregivers are often responsible for assessing their pain. Research has focused on professionals and parents, but it is also common for children with I/DD to receive care from others including respite workers. The investigators recently found a difference between pain beliefs held by respite workers and individuals with little to no experience with this population. Specifically, respite workers believed that a significantly larger percentage of children with severe I/DD sensed less pain than typically developing children. This is contrary to research suggesting that children with I/DD have similar pain perception but communicate it differently (e.g., through idiosyncratic behaviours). Thus, it is possible that respite workers miss critical cues when children with I/DD are in pain. As such, the investigators have developed and successfully piloted a pain training program targeted to respite workers who support children with I/DD. This program demonstrated initial success in improving respite workers' pain-related knowledge, as well as their perceptions of the feasibility of and their own confidence and skill in pain assessment and management with this population of children. Within a randomized control trial, the objectives of this study are to further test the effectiveness of the Let's Talk About Pain respite worker training program on respite workers' (a) pain-related knowledge, (b) self-rated perceptions of the feasibility of and their own confidence and skill in pain assessment and management, and (c) use of pain assessment and management strategies specific to children with I/DD in respite settings. Participants will complete questionnaires immediately before and after provision of a pain training (or control training). Approximately one month after the training, participants will complete these questionnaires for a third time and participate in a focus group regarding their pain assessment and management strategy use. The long term objectives of this line of research are to: 1) increase pain assessment and management abilities of respite workers, and, consequently, 2) decrease levels of suffering and ill-managed pain in children with I/DD.

Official Title
-----------------
Let's Talk About Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Testing the Effectiveness of a Pain Assessment and Management Training Program for Respite Workers Supporting Children With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Conditions
-----------------
Pain

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: Let's Talk About Pain Training
* Other: Family Centered Care Training


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Over the age of 18 Proficient in the English language Active respite worker who provides respite care to children (age 0 - 18) with developmental disabilities Exclusion Criteria: n/a

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Other
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Interventional Model Description: This is a multi-centre clustered parallel RCT with an intervention group (pain training) and control group (control training about family centered care, with an option to receive pain training after follow-up).
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: Let's Talk About Pain Training<br>Participants complete pre-, post- and follow-up measures, and receive a pain training program. The pain assessment and management training will be based on a training previously developed and piloted by Genik et al. (2017). The training will be facilitated by the same researcher (L.G.) throughout the study. | Other: Let's Talk About Pain Training<br>* See arm/group descriptions.<br>|
| Sham Comparator: Family Centered Care Training<br>Participants complete all of the same measures as those in the intervention, but receive a training about family centered care. This training will be facilitated by Andrea Cross (PhD Candidate) from CanChild and will be related to the F-words of childhood disability (function, family, fitness, fun, friends, future; Rosenbaum & Gorter, 2012) . | Other: Family Centered Care Training<br>* See arm/group descriptions.<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Within intervention group change from baseline in scores on Questionnaire for Understanding Pain in Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities - Revised | Pain-related knowledge assessment | Baseline (within 30 minutes prior to start of training), Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Within intervention group change (i.e., maintenance) from post in scores on Questionnaire for Understanding Pain in Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities - Revised | Pain-related knowledge assessment | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training), Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Between group difference in scores on Questionnaire for Understanding Pain in Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities - Revised | Pain-related knowledge assessment | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Between group difference in scores on Questionnaire for Understanding Pain in Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities - Revised | Pain-related knowledge assessment | Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Between group difference in ratings of the feasibility of pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of the feasibility of pain assessment; 0 (Not feasible at all) - 10 (highly/extremely feasible) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Between group difference in ratings of the feasibility of pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of the feasibility of pain assessment; 0 (Not feasible at all) - 10 (highly/extremely feasible) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of the feasibility of pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of the feasibility of pain management; 0 (Not feasible at all) - 10 (highly/extremely feasible) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of the feasibility of pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of the feasibility of pain management; 0 (Not feasible at all) - 10 (highly/extremely feasible) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of perceived confidence in pain assessment abilities | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own confidence in their pain assessment abilities; 0 (Not confident at all) - 10 (highly/extremely confident) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of perceived confidence in pain assessment abilities | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own confidence in their pain assessment abilities; 0 (Not confident at all) - 10 (highly/extremely confident) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of perceived confidence in pain management abilities | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own confidence in their pain management abilities; 0 (Not confident at all) - 10 (highly/extremely confident) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of perceived confidence in pain management abilities | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own confidence in their pain management abilities; 0 (Not confident at all) - 10 (highly/extremely confident) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of perceived skill in pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own skill in pain assessment; 0 (Not skilled at all) - 10 (highly/extremely skilled) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of perceived skill in pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own skill in pain assessment; 0 (Not skilled at all) - 10 (highly/extremely skilled) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of perceived skill in pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own skill in pain management; 0 (Not skilled at all) - 10 (highly/extremely skilled) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Between group difference ratings of perceived skill in pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own skill in pain management; 0 (Not skilled at all) - 10 (highly/extremely skilled) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Within intervention group change from baseline in ratings of the feasibility of pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of the feasibility of pain assessment; 0 (Not feasible at all) - 10 (highly/extremely feasible) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Baseline (within 30 minutes prior to start of training), Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Within intervention group change from baseline in ratings of the feasibility of pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of the feasibility of pain management; 0 (Not feasible at all) - 10 (highly/extremely feasible) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Baseline (within 30 minutes prior to start of training), Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Within intervention group change from baseline in ratings of perceived confidence in pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own confidence in their pain assessment abilities; 0 (Not confident at all) - 10 (highly/extremely confident) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Baseline (within 30 minutes prior to start of training), Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Within intervention group change from baseline in ratings of perceived confidence in pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own confidence in their pain management abilities; 0 (Not confident at all) - 10 (highly/extremely confident) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Baseline (within 30 minutes prior to start of training), Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Within intervention group change from baseline in ratings of perceived skill in pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own skill in pain assessment; 0 (Not skilled at all) - 10 (highly/extremely skilled) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Baseline (within 30 minutes prior to start of training), Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Within intervention group change from baseline in ratings of perceived skill in pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own skill in pain management; 0 (Not skilled at all) - 10 (highly/extremely skilled) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Baseline (within 30 minutes prior to start of training), Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training) | 
| Within intervention group change (i.e., maintenance) from post in ratings of the feasibility of pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of the feasibility of pain assessment; 0 (Not feasible at all) - 10 (highly/extremely feasible) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training), Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Within intervention group change (i.e., maintenance) from post in ratings of the feasibility of pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of the feasibility of pain management; 0 (Not feasible at all) - 10 (highly/extremely feasible) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training), Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Within intervention group change (i.e., maintenance) from post in ratings of perceived confidence in pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own confidence in their pain assessment abilities; 0 (Not confident at all) - 10 (highly/extremely confident) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training), Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Within intervention group change (i.e., maintenance) from post in ratings of perceived confidence in pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own confidence in their pain management abilities; 0 (Not confident at all) - 10 (highly/extremely confident) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training), Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Within intervention group change (i.e., maintenance) from post in ratings of perceived skill in pain assessment | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own skill in pain assessment; 0 (Not skilled at all) - 10 (highly/extremely skilled) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training), Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 
| Within intervention group change (i.e., maintenance) from post in ratings of perceived skill in pain management | Researcher generated scale measuring participants' perceptions of their own skill in pain management; 0 (Not skilled at all) - 10 (highly/extremely skilled) Likert Scale. Higher scores are better. | Post (within 30 minutes after completion of training), Follow-Up (approximately one month after training) | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
pain assessment/management, developmental disabilities, children, education, respite workers