Preoperative patient activation is predictive of improvements in patient-reported outcomes following minimally invasive lumbar decompression

What Is the Association Between Agency and Levels of Capability and Comfort in Musculoskeletal Care? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

People who take active responsibility for their health demonstrate agency. Agency in the context of chronic illness management with disease-modifying treatments is commonly linked to adherence and confidence in care seeking. In musculoskeletal health, agency is commonly observed in the accommodation of conditions related to aging and reflected in studies of people not seeking care. The development of agency measures originates from the realm of medical management of chronic illness rather than that of musculoskeletal disease, which is often optional or discretionary. With growing interest in the universal adoption of agency as a performance measure for quality payment programs, there is a need to better understand how agency is measured across musculoskeletal conditions, and how agency may be a modifiable correlate of capability, comfort, mindset, and circumstances.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We systematically reviewed the evidence regarding agency among people seeking musculoskeletal specialty care and asked: (1) Are greater levels of agency associated with greater levels of comfort and capability? (2) Are greater levels of agency associated with better mental and social health?

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we performed searches on May 22, 2023, with searches spanning September 1988 (in PubMed and Web of Science) and September 1946 (in Ovid Medline) to May 2023. We included original clinical studies addressing the relationship between agency and levels of comfort, capability, mindset, and circumstances (by utilizing patient-reported agency measures [PRAMs], patient-reported outcome measures [PROMs], and mental and social health measures) involving adult patients 18 years or older receiving specialist care for musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 11 studies involving 3537 patients that addressed the primary research question and three studies involving 822 patients that addressed the secondary question. We conducted an evidence quality assessment using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) and found the overall evidence quality to be relatively high, with loss to follow-up and lack of reporting of sample size calculation the most consistent study shortcomings. The measures of capability varied by anatomical region. The Patient Activation Measure (a validated 10- or 13-item survey originally designed to assess a patient's level of understanding and confidence in managing their health and ability to engage in healthcare related to chronic medical illness) was used as a measure of agency in 10 studies (one of which also used the Effective Consumer Scale) and attitudes regarding one's management of musculoskeletal disorders in one study. We registered this systematic review on PROSPERO (Reg CRD42023426893).

RESULTS

In general, the relationships between PRAMs and PROMs are weak to moderate in strength using the Cohen criteria, with 10 of 11 studies demonstrating an association between levels of agency and levels of comfort and capability. The three studies addressing mental health found a weak correlation (where reported) between levels of agency and levels of symptoms of depression and anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The finding that agency in patients seeking care for musculoskeletal conditions is associated with greater comfort, capability, and mental health supports the prioritization of agency modification during musculoskeletal specialty care. This might include behavioral health and cognitive debiasing strategies along with strategies and services promoting self-management. Our work also points to an opportunity to develop agency measures better suited for discretionary care that more directly assess the cultivation of healthy mindsets, behaviors, and accommodative attitudes toward the discomfort and incapability experienced during aging.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prognostic study.

Preoperative patient activation predicts minimum clinically important difference for PROMIS pain and physical function in patients undergoing elective spine surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Patient activation is a patient's willingness to take independent actions to manage their own health care.

PURPOSE

The goal of this study is to determine whether preoperative patient activation measure (PAM) predicts minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain, physical function, depression, and anxiety for patients undergoing elective spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A single-institution, academic database of patients undergoing elective spine surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURE

MCID at 1-year follow-up for PROMIS pain, physical function, depression and anxiety.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a single-institution, academic database of patients undergoing elective spine surgery. Preoperative patient activation was evaluated using the PAM-13 survey, which was used to stratify patients into four activation stages. Primary outcome variable was achieving MCID at 1-year follow-up for PROMIS pain and physical function. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine impact of patient activation on PROMIS pain and the physical function.

RESULTS

Of the 430 patients, 220 (51%) were female with a mean age of 58.2±16.8. Preoperatively, 34 (8%) were in activation stage 1, 45 (10%) in stage 2, 98 (23%) in stage 3, and 253 (59%) in stage 4. At 1-year follow up, 248 (58%) achieved MCID for PROMIS physical function, 256 (60%) achieved MCID for PROMIS pain, 151 (35.28%) achieved MCID for PROMIS depression, and 197 (46%) achieved MCID for PROMIS anxiety. For PROMIS physical function, when compared to patients at stage 1 activation, patients at stage 2 (aOR:3.49, 95% CI:1.27, 9.59), stage 3 (aOR:3.54, 95% CI:1.40, 8.98) and stage 4 (aOR:7.88, 95% CI:3.29, 18.9) were more likely to achieve MCID. For PROMIS pain, when compared against patients at stage 1, patients at stage 3 (aOR:2.82, 95% CI:1.18, 6.76) and stage 4 (aOR:5.44, 95% CI:2.41, 12.3) were more likely to achieve MCID. For PROMIS depression, when compared against patients at stage 1, patients at stage 4 were more likely to achieve MCID (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR):2.59, 95% CI:1.08-6.19). For PROMIS anxiety, when compared against patients at stage 1, stage 3 (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR):3.21, 95% CI:1.20-8.57), and stage 4 (aOR:5.56, 95% CI:2.20-14.01) were more likely to achieve MCID.

CONCLUSION

Patients at higher stages of activation were more likely to achieve MCID for PROMIS pain, physical function, depression, and anxiety at 1-year follow-up. Routine preoperative assessment of patient activation may help identify patients at risk of poor outcomes.