PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 6, 2026Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine1 citations

Evaluation of a mental health screening tool to determine the need for psychological interview for patients offered neuromodulation implant therapies for pain

View Full Paper
CTChiara TomaKCKathryn CurtisAMAbigail Muere

Key Points

  • This research aims to assess whether a screening tool can eliminate unnecessary psychological evaluations for patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation without affecting treatment outcomes.
  • Conducted a prospective, observational cohort study with data from patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation trials.
  • Implemented a screening tool using validated questionnaires for psychological assessment.
  • Compared outcomes between patients who bypassed psychological assessment and those who did not.
  • Measured success based on pain reduction after one year post-implantation.
  • Trial-to-implant rates were similar between patients who met with psychologists and those who bypassed this step.
  • After one year, the proportion of patients reporting pain relief was comparable in both groups.
  • Higher baseline pain intensity and use of tricyclic antidepressants were linked to higher chances of implant failure.
  • Patients with pain durations over ten years had an increased likelihood of successful implantation.

Abstract

Introduction Psychological comorbidities can negatively impact outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain. While psychological assessment is commonly required before SCS implantation, evidence supporting its impact on outcomes is limited, and such assessments may be unnecessary for many patients and contribute to delays in care. Our center implemented a screening tool incorporating validated questionnaires and a mental health checklist to triage the need for formal psychological evaluation. This prospective, observational cohort study compared outcomes of SCS trials and implants between patients who bypassed (fast track: FT) versus those who underwent a formal assessment by a psychologist (AP). Methods Data were collected from patients undergoing SCS trials between July 2017 and December 2021. The screening tool used thresholds on validated questionnaires assessing anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and opioid misuse risk, along with a checklist capturing significant anxiety or depression, self-harm, substance abuse, or mental-health-related hospitalization. Patients screening positive underwent an AP; others proceeded directly to trial (FT). 1 year post implantation outcomes were collected, with successful implantation defined as ≥30% pain reduction from baseline. Results Of 171 patients (114 AP, 57 FT), trial-to-implant rates were similar (72% AP vs 70% FT, p=0.811). The proportion of responders at 1 year post implant was also comparable (53% AP vs 60% FT, p=0.927). Multivariate logistic regression identified that higher baseline pain intensity (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, p=0.011) and use of tricyclic antidepressants (aOR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.56, p=0.005) were associated with implant failure, whereas pain duration >10 years was associated with implant success (aOR 3.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 9.02, p=0.039). Conclusions This screening tool effectively identifies patients who can bypass routine psychological assessment without compromising 1 year SCS outcomes. Implementation can streamline patient flow, reduce wait times, and reserve psychological resources for those who need formal evaluation.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Toma et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69aa70f8531e4c4a9ff5b42chttps://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-107507
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper