Assessing discrepancies in outcomes of pain rehabilitation: “these questionnaires don’t measure results that are relevant to me”

How is recovery defined and measured in patients with low back pain? A mixed study systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite the burden of low back pain (LBP) there is no currently accepted definition for its recovery, nor is there a gold standard for measurement. In addition, it is currently unclear how the perspective of patients are used in making recovery determinations. The purpose of this mixed study systematic review across both quantitative and qualitative literature was to (1) explore how recovery has been defined and measured for patients experiencing LBP, and (2) examine how the perspectives of patients and providers for recovery of LBP align or differ.

METHODS

This was a mixed study systematic review. Key databases were searched from inception until February 20, 2023: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro looking for sources examining definitions and measures of recovery in patients with LBP. Grey literature was identified through the ProQuest Thesis & Dissertation database. Two reviewers used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality assessment of both qualitative and quantitative studies to explore definitions, measurements and perspective of recovery.

RESULTS

466 original studies were included: 12 qualitative studies, 88 quantitative randomized control trials, 348 quantitative non-randomized studies, 16 quantitative descriptive studies, and two mixed methods studies. Most of the time recovery was not defined, with six other themes identified: comparison of scores, in relation to a singular cut-off score, improvement of absence of clinical symptoms, a return to a pre-injury state, change/improvement score from baseline and as a process/trajectory. For recovery measurements, six themes described the data: multiple measures, single measure excluding recovery, a recovery measure, recovery and an additional measure, pain and an additional measure, or indirect/ not specified. Lastly recovery perspectives were made from either the patient, provider, or a combination of patient and provider.

CONCLUSION

For patients living with LBP, the concept of recovery continues to lack consensus for its definition and measurement in patients with LBP. The perspectives of patients were mostly not preserved in making recovery determinations. Urgent action is needed to generate consensus across clinicians, researchers, and patients regarding how recovery should be defined and measured. A multitude of study-specific definitions limit knowledge syntheses and definition of best practice.

Patient acceptance of care of a novel care pathway for those at risk of poor outcomes from musculoskeletal pain: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

Investigate people's acceptance of specialist musculoskeletal care within a new care pathway for common musculoskeletal conditions (low back pain, neck pain/whiplash, knee osteoarthritis).

DESIGN

Convergent parallel mixed methods design referencing the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. The study included a subset of participants (n = 29) at-risk of poor outcomes from the intervention arm of the PAthway of CarE for common musculoskeletal conditions (PACE-MSK) trial. In the PACE-MSK arm, participants received specialist physiotherapist care as an adjunct to the care provided by their primary healthcare professional(s). One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted around 3-months after commencing in the trial. Quantitative data were collected at baseline and 3-month follow-up (health-related quality of life, pain self-efficacy, global perceived change, satisfaction).

RESULTS

Five themes were identified (Expectations and beliefs shaped patient experience; Clinical expertise and competence influence acceptance; Person-centred care; Mechanisms facilitating beneficial responses to care; Gaps in care pathway implementation). There were positive individual changes in physical quality of life for 17/29 (59%) participants, mental health quality of life for 12/29 (41%), pain self-efficacy for 8/29 (28%) and global perceived change for 19/29 (66%). Management met expectations with the majority reporting high levels of satisfaction. Integrating the qualitative and quantitative data with the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, there were complementary meta-inferences in the constructs of 'ethicality', 'intervention coherence', 'self-efficacy' and 'affective attitude'. Divergence was identified in 'perceived effectiveness'.

DISCUSSION

In general, there was positive acceptance of the care pathway by participants. Specialist physiotherapists' care was perceived as a positive addition to usual care.

Meaningful contributions of rehabilitation for people with persistent pain; a reflexive thematic analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to explore the meaningful contributions of rehabilitation for participants living with persistent pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A phenomenological methodology was used. Thirteen purposefully selected participants, who self-identified as substantially improved from persistent pain due to rehabilitation, were interviewed in-depth. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Participants included three men and ten women, age ranging from 22-69 years, pain duration was 2-30 years. Seven interconnected themes were developed: 1) indication of negative pain and health care experiences, 2) supporting working alliance with healthcare professionals, 3) Pain Dialogue, 4) improved self-awareness and self-regulation, 5) different view on pain, 6) autonomy and personal growth and 7) hope and new perspective. Integration of these themes provided a framework for understanding meaningful contributions of rehabilitation from the participants' perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified seven interconnected themes enhancing meaningful contributions of rehabilitation for participants who have substantially improved from persistent pain. These findings provide a novel conceptual understanding of how rehabilitation can foster recovery. The themes strongly support person-centred care, an understanding of Pain Dialogue and personal growth through the lens of the lived experience. The quality of the therapeutic relationship is considered a central vehicle for improved health outcomes.

Five Recommendations to Address the Limitations of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are reported by the patient and designed to capture patients' unique perspectives of their symptoms, quality of life, function, disability, and overall health status. Despite their important role in the health care landscape, it is important to recognize that PROMs have numerous shortcomings. These include weaknesses in the development of tools and interpretation of scale values, which can lead to variable patient reporting and dissimilarities in study results, potentially influencing the effectiveness of findings. This Viewpoint makes recommendations for how to interpret and best use PROMs, in spite of their shortcomings. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(12):562-565. Epub 16 Nov 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10836.

Long-term follow-up of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain attending interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation: outcomes and predictive factors

The long-term outcomes of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation (IPR) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) and its predictors has been studied to a limited extent. In this historical cohort study, functioning, satisfaction with life domains, and pain were assessed at baseline, discharge, and at 6-15 years follow-up. At follow-up, most patients (77%) rated the effects of the IPR as temporarily or persistently positive. The gains in functioning, satisfaction with life domains, and pain made during IPR remained for 6-15 years after the IPR. Patients who were single, retired, or not in work, and those having higher pain and lower functioning at baseline, had lower functioning at follow-up, while patients with traumatic pain disorders had higher functioning at follow-up. Gains made during IPR, particularly gains in social and mental functioning and in pain predicted functioning at follow-up. Treatments and events between discharge and follow-up also influenced the long-term outcome. In conclusion, on average, outcomes achieved during IPR persisted at long-term follow-up. Predictors of a better long-term outcome were mainly baseline characteristics.