Balancing the ‘bio’ with the psychosocial in whiplash associated disorders

Pain Catastrophizing: Controversies, Misconceptions and Future Directions

Recent reports have pointed to problems with the term "pain catastrophizing." Critiques of the term pain catastrophizing have come from several sources including individuals with chronic pain, advocates for individuals with chronic pain, and pain scholars. Reports indicate that the term has been used to dismiss the medical basis of pain complaints, to question the authenticity of pain complaints, and to blame individuals with pain for their pain condition. In this paper, we advance the position that the problems prompting calls to rename the construct of pain catastrophizing have little to do with the term, and as such, changing the term will do little to solve these problems. We argue that continued calls for changing or deleting the term pain catastrophizing will only divert attention away from some fundamental flaws in how individuals with pain conditions are assessed and treated. Some of these fundamental flaws have their roots in the inadequate training of health and allied health professionals in evidence-based models of pain, in the use of psychological assessment and intervention tools for the clinical management of pain, and in gender equity and antiracism. Critiques that pain scholars have leveled against the defining, operational, and conceptual bases of pain catastrophizing are also addressed. Arguments for reconceptualizing pain catastrophizing as a worry-related construct are discussed. Recommendations are made for remediation of the problems that have contributed to calls to rename the term pain catastrophizing. PERSPECTIVE: The issues prompting calls to rename the construct of pain catastrophizing have their roots in fundamental flaws in how individuals with pain are assessed and treated. Efforts to address these problems will require more than a simple change in terminology.

Measuring biopsychosocial risk for back pain disability in chiropractic patients using the STarT back screening tool: a cross-sectional survey

Background

The Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT), a 9-item questionnaire, screens for pain, physical functioning, fear-avoidance beliefs, catastrophizing, anxious thoughts, low mood, and bothersomeness in persons with back pain. SBT scores designate low, medium, or high risk for developing persistent disabling back pain. The primary study aim was to report the prevalence of SBT-calculated risk for back pain disability in US patients seeking chiropractic care.

Methods

The SBT questionnaire was administered to patients ≥18 years in 3 Chiropractic College outpatient teaching clinics in Iowa and Illinois (May 2017). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze respondent characteristics and prevalence of SBT-calculated risk subgroups. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between respondent characteristics and SBT scores (including psychological subscores).

Results

Of 550 respondents, 496 completed the SBT; 392 (79%) scored low-risk, 81 (16%) medium-risk, and 23 (5%) high-risk. Mean (SD) age was 44.8 (15.9), 56.9% were female, 88.2% white, 62.6% employed, mean current pain was 2.9 (2.1) out of 10, and 62% reported symptom duration > 3 months. Eighteen percent of respondents reported anxious thoughts, 32% low mood, 41% ≥ 1 and 21% ≥ 3 SBT psychological risk factors. Respondents reporting higher average pain (OR = 1.8 [1.4, 2.3]) and pain severity (OR = 1.3 [1.0 to 1.6]) were more likely to score with medium or high risk. Respondents reporting mid back versus low back pain (OR = 0.2 [0.1, 0.7]), and those employed less than full-time versus full-time (0.2 [01, 0.5]) were less likely to score with medium or high risk. Respondents reporting higher average pain were more likely to report ≥1 psychological factor (OR = 1.8 [1.5, 2.0]). Respondents employed part-time were less likely to report ≥1 psychological factor than those employed full-time (OR = 0.4 [0.2, 0.7]).

Conclusion

The sample surveyed was less likely to score with medium or high risk for back pain disability than previous samples studied, perhaps due to differences in study design and sample characteristics. Rates of low mood and anxious thoughts indicate a need for future research to explore psychological factors among persons seeking chiropractic care.

A Qualitative Description of Chronic Neck Pain has Implications for Outcome Assessment and Classification

Background:

Neck pain is common, but few studies have used qualitative methods to describe it.

Purpose:

To describe the quality, distribution and behavior of neck pain.

Methods:

Sixteen people (15 females; mean age = 33 years (range = 20-69)) with neck pain >3 months were interviewed using a semi-structured guide. Interview data were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Descriptive content analysis was performed by two authors. Participants then completed an electronic descriptive pain tool, placing icons (word and icon descriptors to describe quality) on anatomic diagrams to identify location of pain, and intensity ratings at each location. This data was triangulated with interviews.

Results:

Aching pain and stiffness in the posterior neck and shoulder region were the most common pain complaints. All patients reported more than one pain quality. Associated headache was common (11/16 people); but varied in location and pain quality; 13/16 reported upper extremity symptoms. Neuropathic characteristics (burning) or sensory disturbance (numbness/tingling) occurred in some patients, but were less common. Activities that involved lifting/carrying and psychological stress were factors reported as exacerbating pain. Physical activity was valued as essential to function, but also instigated exacerbations. Concordance between the structured pain tool and interviews enhanced trustworthiness of our results. Integrating qualitative findings with a previous classification system derived a 7-axis neck pain classification: source/context, sample subgroup, distribution, duration, episode pattern, pain/symptom severity, disability/participation restriction.

Conclusions:

Qualitative assessment and classification should consider the multiple dimensions of neck pain.

Adding Psychosocial Factors Does Not Improve Predictive Models for People With Spinal Pain Enough to Warrant Extensive Screening for Them at Baseline

BACKGROUND

Chiropractors throughout the world by and large focus on patients with musculoskeletal complaints who are generally in good health. Currently, it is widely accepted that neck pain and low back pain are best understood as biopsychosocial phenomena.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether certain psychosocial factors provide added value for predicting recovery.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, multicenter, chiropractic, practice-based cohort study in Belgium and the Netherlands.

METHODS

A total of 917 participants, 326 with neck pain and 591 with low back pain, completed self-administered questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. They provided information on several demographic, biomedical, and psychosocial variables. Lasting perceived recovery was used as the outcome measure, that is, recovery at all follow-up assessments from 3 months on. Twenty-seven potential predictors of outcome were used to build the predictive model. Stepwise, backward generalized estimating equation regression models were used to take into account the clustering of participants within practices. For assessment of the added value of psychosocial variables, 2 model fit indexes were compared.

RESULTS

After the addition of psychosocial variables, predictors in the final model for neck pain included occupational status, body mass index, duration of complaints, previous treatment, and participant expectations (the model fit was marginally improved from 0.684 to 0.695 for the area under the curve and from 65.0% to 66.1% for the percentage correctly predicted). In the final model for low back pain, the selected predictors included country of treatment, age, duration of complaints, previous imaging, and somatization (the area under the curve changed from 0.669 to 0.715, and the percentage correctly predicted changed from 68.6% to 69.5%). Only a minority of participants had high scores on psychological variables.

LIMITATIONS

The reliability and validity of lasting recovery as an outcome measure have not been tested. The cohort needs to be seen as a convenience sample. Selection bias, therefore, not be ruled out. There are no indications, however, that patients with complex psychosocial profiles were excluded from this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial variables provided little added value for predicting outcome in people who had neck pain or low back pain and sought chiropractic care. Therefore, chiropractors should not screen extensively for them at baseline. With regard to the identification of the small subgroup of people with high scores on psychosocial variables and a high risk for chronic pain, further investigation is needed.

Differential changes in muscle composition exist in traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain

STUDY DESIGN

A population based cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE

To clarify relative constituents of viable muscle in 2-dimensional cross-sectional area (CSA) measures of ventral and dorsal cervical muscles in patients with chronic whiplash-associated disorders (WAD), idiopathic neck pain, and healthy controls.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Previous data using T1-weighted magnetic resonance image demonstrated large amounts of neck muscle fat infiltration and increased neck muscle CSA in patients with chronic WAD but not in idiopathic neck pain or healthy controls.

METHODS

Magnetic resonance images were obtained for 14 cervical muscle regions in 136 females, including 79 with chronic whiplash, 23 with chronic idiopathic neck pain, and 34 healthy controls.

RESULTS

Without fat removed, relative CSA of 7 of 14 muscle regions in the participants with chronic WAD was larger, 3 of 14 smaller and 4 of 14 similar to healthy individuals. When T1-weighted signal representing the lipid content of these muscles was removed, 8 of 14 relative muscle CSA in patients with whiplash were similar, 5 of 14 were smaller and only 1 of 14 was larger than those observed in healthy controls. Removal of fat from the relative CSA measurement did not alter findings between participants with idiopathic neck pain and healthy controls.

CONCLUSION

These findings clarify that previous reports of increased relative CSA in patients with chronic whiplash represent cervical muscle pseudohypertrophy. Relative muscle CSA measures reveal atrophy in several muscles in both patients with WAD and idiopathic neck pain, which supports inclusion of muscle conditioning in the total management of these patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Catastrophizing and perceived injustice: risk factors for the transition to chronicity after whiplash injury

STUDY DESIGN

The article will summarize research that has supported the role of pain catastrophizing and perceived injustice as risk factors for problematic recovery after whiplash injury.

OBJECTIVE

This article focuses on two psychological variables that have been shown to impact on recovery trajectories after whiplash injury; namely pain catastrophizing and perceived injustice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Research has shown that psychological variables play a role in determining the trajectory of recovery after whiplash injury.

METHODS

This article will focus on two psychological variables that have been shown to impact on recovery trajectories after whiplash injury; namely pain catastrophizing and perceived injustice. The article will summarize research that has supported the role of pain catastrophizing and perceived injustice as risk factors for problematic recovery after whiplash injury.

RESULTS

Several investigations have shown that measures of catastrophizing and perceived injustice prospectively predict problematic trajectories of recovery after whiplash injury. Basic research points to the potential roles of expectancies, attention, coping and endogenous opioid dysregulation as possible avenues through which catastrophizing might heighten the probability of the persistence of pain after whiplash injury. Although research has yet to systematically address the mechanisms by which perceived injustice might contribute to prolonged disability in individuals with whiplash injuries, there are grounds for suggesting the potential contributions of catastrophizing, pain behavior and anger.

CONCLUSION

A challenge for future research will be the development and evaluation of risk factor-targeted interventions aimed at reducing catastrophizing and perceived injustice to improve recovery trajectories after whiplash injury.

The usefulness of clinical measures of psychologic factors in patients with spinal pain

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to investigate whether a screening procedure could capture important psychologic factors with minimum burden to the patient and to investigate whether correlations exist among the various psychologic factors.

METHODS

A screening procedure consisting of the 11-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, a 2-question coping strategies screen, and the depression and anxiety subscales of the Bournemouth Disability Questionnaire was provided to consecutive patients with neck pain (NP) or low back pain (LBP) as part of the usual initial assessment process at a busy spine center, which includes chiropractic and physical therapy. Correlations and associations between these variables were determined.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 95 patients with NP and 260 patients with LBP. Statistically significant correlations and associations were found between all measures in both cohorts with the exception of depression and coping in patients with NP. Statistically significant associations were found among all measures in both cohorts with the exception of depression and coping and coping and fear in patients with NP.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that a screening procedure may provide useful clinical information regarding psychologic factors that are of potential relevance in patients with NP and LBP.

The anatomy and biomechanics of acute and chronic whiplash injury

Whiplash injury is the most common motor vehicle injury, yet it is also one of the most poorly understood. Here we examine the evidence supporting an organic basis for acute and chronic whiplash injuries and review the anatomical sites within the neck that are potentially injured during these collisions. For each proposed anatomical site--facet joints, spinal ligaments, intervertebral discs, vertebral arteries, dorsal root ganglia, and neck muscles--we present the clinical evidence supporting that injury site, its relevant anatomy, the mechanism of and tolerance to injury, and the future research needed to determine whether that site is responsible for some whiplash injuries. This article serves as a snapshot of the current state of whiplash biomechanics research and provides a roadmap for future research to better understand and ultimately prevent whiplash injuries.