[Avoidance-endurance fast screening (AE-FS) : Content and predictive validity of a 9‑item screening instrument for patients with unspecific subacute low back pain]

The biobehavioural pain and movement questionnaire (BioPMovQ): development and psychometric validation of a new questionnaire

Objective

The purpose of this research was to design and psychometrically validate a new instrument (the Biobehavioural Pain and Movement Questionnaire/BioPMovQ), which assesses the relationship between pain and various factors related to motor behaviour from a biobehavioural perspective.

Methods

A mixed-method design combining a qualitative study with an observational and cross-sectional study was employed to develop (content validity) and psychometrically validate (construct validity, reliability and concurrent/discriminant validity) a new instrument. A total of 200 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain were recruited.

Results

According to the exploratory factor analysis, the final version of the BioPMovQ consists of 16 items distributed across 4 subscales (1, disability, 2, self-efficacy for physical activity; 3, movement avoidance behaviours; and 4, self-perceived functional ability), all with an eigen value greater than 1, explaining 55.79% of the variance. The BioPMovQ showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.82; McDonald's ω = 0.83). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.91), which was considered to demonstrate excellent test-retest reliability. The standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change were 3.43 and 8.04 points, respectively. No floor or ceiling effects were identified. There was a positive, significant and moderate magnitude correlation with the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (r = 0.54), kinesiophobia (r = 0.60), pain catastrophising (r = 0.44) and chronic pain self-efficacy (r = -0.31).

Conclusion

The BioPMovQ showed good psychometric properties. Based on the findings of this study, the BioPMovQ can be used in research and clinical practice to assess patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

No prognostic model for people with recent-onset low back pain has yet been demonstrated to be suitable for use in clinical practice: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

What model development and external validation studies exist that focus on the prognosis of patients with recent-onset low back pain (LBP)? What is the performance (in terms of discrimination and calibration) of these clinical prediction models?

METHODS

Systematic searches on MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were conducted. Model development and/or external validation studies of patients with recent-onset LBP were selected. Models predicting outcomes of pain, disability, sick leave, work absence and self-reported recovery, with at least 12 weeks of follow-up, were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST instrument.

RESULTS

We identified 17 prognostic models developed to predict outcomes in people with recent-onset LBP: six models were in the development phase and 11 were in the validation phase. The most assessed prediction model was the Original Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire. The Da Silva Clinical Prediction Model was the only model, from a study with low risk of bias, that presented acceptable discrimination, demonstrating 'good' performance in predicting recovery from pain (C-statistic 0.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.78) and overall acceptable agreement in calibration.

CONCLUSION

Most prediction models for prognosis of patients with recent-onset LBP did not perform well at discrimination, few studies reported calibration and their performance varied across studies. It seems premature to advocate use of the available models, at their current state of development and validation, for low back pain in primary care, considering their generally poor methods and performance.

REGISTRATION

CRD42020160988.

[Presentation of an innovative interdisciplinary and cross-sector therapeutic concept for pain patients as part of a regional selective contract]

Hintergrund

Eine gestufte Versorgung in der Behandlung chronisch schmerzkranker Patient*innen ist in Deutschland nur in Ansätzen vorhanden. Vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Pandemiebedingungen hat sich eine Unter- und Fehlversorgung weiter verschärft.

Ziel

Entwicklung und Aufbau eines sektorenübergreifenden Behandlungskonzepts für schmerzkranke Patient*innen im Rahmen eines Selektivvertrags.

Methoden

Eingebettet in bereits vorhandene Versorgungsstrukturen wurden nach vorbezeichneten Kriterien sieben Versorgungspfade (Clinical Pathways, CP) definiert, in die eingeschriebene Patient*innen nach einem interdisziplinären Assessment geleitet werden.

Aufbau

Im CP I verbleiben die Patient*innen in der Regelversorgung. Im CP II wird zusätzlich eine einmalige interprofessionelle Edukation von 3 h zur Prophylaxe weiterer Chronifizierung angeboten. Im CP III gehen die Patient*innen für sechs Monate in eine fachärztlich spezialisierte ambulante Schmerzbehandlung. Das CP IV ist eine teilstationäre multimodale Therapie, bei der viele Präsenztage durch telemedizinische Inhalte mit Unterstützung einer Reha-App ersetzt werden. CP V und VI sind vollstationäre multimodale Behandlungen über acht und 15 Tage. In CP VII kann bei ambulantem psychotherapeutischen Behandlungsbedarf für Patient*innen nach vollstationärer Behandlung zur Überbrückung des Wartezeitraums über sechs Monate eine niederfrequente Psychotherapie erfolgen.

Qualitätssicherung und Evaluation

Die wissenschaftliche Begleitung erfolgt mittels ausgewählter Fragebögen und psychometrischer Testverfahren jeweils drei, sechs und zwölf Monate nach erfolgtem Assessment, um die Inhalte des Vertrags zu evaluieren.

Patterns of Approach to Activity in 851 Patients With Severe Chronic Pain: Translation and Preliminary Validation of the 9-item Avoidance-Endurance Fast-Screen (AEFS) Into Danish

OBJECTIVES

The Avoidance-Endurance Fast-Screen (AEFS) is a 9-item self-report questionnaire that classifies patients with back pain into 4 activity-related subgroups, based on the Avoidance-Endurance Model of pain. The objective of this study was to translate the AEFS into Danish and investigate its discriminative abilities in a large, diverse patient sample.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 851 specialist care-seeking patients with severe chronic pain conditions participated in this cross-sectional study. Participants were categorized as showing a "distress-endurance" (DER), "eustress-endurance" (EER), "fear-avoidance" (FAR), or "adaptive" (AR) pattern. Principal component analysis reduced a large number of psychological variables beforehand. Construct and outcome-based validity were explored using multivariate analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 33.6% were categorized as DER, 29.4% as EER, 22% as FAR, and 15% as adaptive. Principal component analysis showed the factors activity-related pain behavior, affective distress, and dysfunctional pain thoughts. The AEFS-DK discriminated all 4 subgroups in terms or their pain behavior with EER>DER>AR>FAR. FAR showed less moderate/vigorous activity than DER and EER and more sedentary time than EER. DER and FAR showed higher affective distress, dysfunctional pain thoughts, and poorer outcomes than AR and EER.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate good construct validity of the AEFS-DK discriminating the 4 avoidance-endurance model-related subgroups with respect to approach to activity behavior, psychological variables, and reported physical activity. Concerning outcome-based validity, 2 subgroups DER/FAR and AR/EER could be distinguished with inconclusive results for the eustress-endurance subgroup. Future studies are warranted using longitudinal research designs investigating whether AEFS subgroups differ in terms of treatment effects and long-term prognosis.

Psychosocial subgroups in high-performance athletes with low back pain: eustress-endurance is most frequent, distress-endurance most problematic!

OBJECTIVES

In non-athletes, fear-avoidance and endurance-related pain responses appear to influence the development and maintenance of low back pain (LBP). The avoidance-endurance model (AEM) postulates three dysfunctional pain response patterns that are associated with poorer pain outcomes. Whether comparable relationships are present in athletes is currently unclear. This cross-sectional case-control study explored frequencies and behavioral validity of the AEM-based patterns in athletes with and without LBP, as well as their outcome-based validity in athletes with LBP.

METHODS

Based on the Avoidance-Endurance Fast-Screen, 438 (57.1% female) young adult high-performance athletes with and 335 (45.4% female) without LBP were categorized as showing a "distress-endurance" (DER), "eustress-endurance" (EER), "fear-avoidance" (FAR) or "adaptive" (AR) pattern.

RESULTS

Of the athletes with LBP, 9.8% were categorized as FAR, 20.1% as DER, 47.0% as EER, and 23.1% as AR; of the athletes without LBP, 10.4% were categorized as FAR, 14.3% as DER, 47.2% as EER, and 28.1% as AR. DER and EER reported more pronounced endurance- and less pronounced avoidance-related pain responses than FAR, and vice versa. DER further reported the highest training frequency. In athletes with LBP, all dysfunctional groups reported higher LBP intensity, with FAR and DER displaying higher disability scores than AR.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that also in athletes, patterns of endurance- and fear-avoidance-related pain responses appear dysfunctional with respect to LBP. While EER occurred most often, DER seems most problematic.

IMPLICATIONS

Endurance-related pain responses that might be necessary during painful exercise should therefore be inspected carefully when shown in response to clinical pain.

Psychological Subgrouping to Assess the Risk for the Development or Maintenance of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Is This the Way Forward?

BACKGROUND

Because musculoskeletal pain problems are so prevalent, new methods of evaluating and treating patients are needed to increase effectiveness. Subgrouping is a method wherein patients are classified into defined groups on the basis of psychosocial factors with the expectation of more specific and tailored treatments can be prescribed for them. For those seeking care for a new episode, the risk of developing chronic pain-related disability is assessed, whereas, for those with existing pain, the risk for the maintenance of the chronic pain problem is evaluated.

AIM

The purpose of this narrative review is to examine how patients are classified into subgroups with regard to methods of evaluation and to ascertain whether subgrouping actually facilitates treatment.

RESULTS

For the development of disability, screening tools, for example, the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, accurately stratify patients into groups (eg, high, medium, low risk) that predict future pain-related work disability. In addition, several studies show that treatments that directly key in on risk groups enjoy enhanced outcomes compared with treatment as usual. For the maintenance of chronic musculoskeletal pain problems, there are several instruments that classify patients into specific groups or profiles, for example, on the basis of the avoidance and endurance model or the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) assessment. Although some evidence shows that these classifications are related to treatment outcome, we found no study that directly tested a system for providing treatment matched to the subgrouping for maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that it is possible to reliably subgroup patients with musculoskeletal problems. Likewise, treatments that address the risk factors in the screening procedure may enhance outcomes compared with treatment as usual. More work is needed, however, to better understand the mechanism, so that assessment methods can be improved, and treatment specific to subgroups can be developed and evaluated.

Individual recovery expectations and prognosis of outcomes in non-specific low back pain: prognostic factor review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is costly and disabling. Prognostic factor evidence can help healthcare providers and patients understand likely prognosis, inform the development of prediction models to identify subgroups, and may inform new treatment strategies. Recent studies have suggested that people who have poor expectations for recovery experience more back pain disability, but study results have differed.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise evidence on the association between recovery expectations and disability outcomes in adults with low back pain, and explore sources of heterogeneity.

SEARCH METHODS

The search strategy included broad and focused electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to 12 March 2019, reference list searches of relevant reviews and included studies, and citation searches of relevant expectation measurement tools.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included low back pain prognosis studies from any setting assessing general, self-efficacy, and treatment expectations (measured dichotomously and continuously on a 0 - 10 scale), and their association with work participation, clinically important recovery, functional limitations, or pain intensity outcomes at short (3 months), medium (6 months), long (12 months), and very long (> 16 months) follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted study characteristics and all reported estimates of unadjusted and adjusted associations between expectations and related outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. We conducted narrative syntheses and meta-analyses when appropriate unadjusted or adjusted estimates were available. Two review authors independently graded and reported the overall quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 4635 unique citations to include 60 studies (30,530 participants). Thirty-five studies were conducted in Europe, 21 in North America, and four in Australia. Study populations were mostly chronic (37%), from healthcare (62%) or occupational settings (26%). General expectation was the most common type of recovery expectation measured (70%); 16 studies measured more than one type of expectation. Usable data for syntheses were available for 52 studies (87% of studies; 28,885 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that positive recovery expectations are strongly associated with better work participation (narrative synthesis: 21 studies; meta-analysis: 12 studies, 4777 participants: odds ratio (OR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 3.62), and low-quality evidence for clinically important recovery outcomes (narrative synthesis: 12 studies; meta-analysis: 5 studies, 1820 participants: OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.41), both at follow-up times closest to 12 months, using adjusted data. The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest, including functional limitations (narrative synthesis: 10 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1435 participants: OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31) and pain intensity (narrative synthesis: 9 studies; meta-analysis: 3 studies, 1555 participants: OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23) outcomes at follow-up times closest to 12 months using adjusted data, is less certain, achieving very low- and low-quality evidence, respectively. No studies reported statistically significant or clinically important negative associations between recovery expectations and any low back pain outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that individual recovery expectations are probably strongly associated with future work participation (moderate-quality evidence) and may be associated with clinically important recovery outcomes (low-quality evidence). The association of recovery expectations with other outcomes of interest is less certain. Our findings suggest that recovery expectations should be considered in future studies, to improve prognosis and management of low back pain.

[Psychosocial risk factors for chronic back pain in the general population and in competitive sports : From theory to clinical screening-a review from the MiSpEx network]

BACKGROUND

Lumbar back pain and the high risk of chronic complaints is not only an important health concern in the general population but also in high performance athletes. In contrast to non-athletes, there is a lack of research into psychosocial risk factors in athletes. Moreover, the development of psychosocial screening questionnaires that would be qualified to detect athletes with a high risk of chronicity is in the early stages. The purpose of this review is to give an overview of research into psychosocial risk factors in both populations and to evaluate the performance of screening instruments in non-athletes.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsycINFO were searched from March to June 2016 using the keywords "psychosocial screening", "low back pain", "sciatica" and "prognosis", "athletes". We included prospective studies conducted in patients with low back pain with and without radiation to the legs, aged ≥18 years and a follow-up of at least 3 months.

RESULTS

We identified 16 eligible studies, all of them conducted in samples of non-athletes. Among the most frequently published screening questionnaires, the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) demonstrated a sufficient early prediction of return to work and the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) revealed acceptable performance predicting pain-related impairment. The prediction of future pain was sufficient with the Risk Analysis of Back Pain Chronification (RISC-BP) and the Heidelberg Short Questionnaire (HKF).

CONCLUSION

Psychosocial risk factors of chronic back pain, such as chronic stress, depressive mood, and maladaptive pain processing are becoming increasingly more recognized in competitive sports. Screening instruments that have been shown to be predictive in the general population are currently being tested for suitability in the German MiSpEx research consortium.