Communication and empathy within the patient-physician relationship among patients with and without chronic pain

CONTEXT

Chronic pain may affect the relationship between patients and their treating physicians.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to compare four aspects of physician communication and physician empathy reported by patients with chronic pain and in chronic pain-free controls.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted within a national pain research registry from July 2020 through January 2024. Patients with chronic low back pain of greater than 3 months duration were matched to chronic pain-free controls utilizing propensity scores derived from a logistic regression model based on 11 variables that included sociodemographic characteristics, cigarette smoking status, history of comorbid medical conditions, and duration of the current patient-physician relationship. Patients reported on the primary outcomes of physician communication utilizing the Communication Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ) and physician empathy utilizing the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure. Group means were compared for each aspect of physician communication (patient participation and patient orientation, effective and open communication, emotionally supportive communication, and communication about personal circumstances) and physician empathy, and Cohen's d statistic was utilized to assess the clinical relevance of between-group differences. Secondary exploratory analyses were also performed to compare patients treated by osteopathic physicians vs. allopathic physicians and to determine whether study group X physician type interaction effects were present.

RESULTS

The 387 patients in each study group were matched within a caliper width of 0.001 on the propensity score. Overall, patients ranged from 21 to 79 years of age (mean, 50.7 years; standard deviation [SD], 15.1 years), and 617 (79.7 %) of them were female. Patients in the chronic pain group reported poorer scores for all aspects of physician communication and physician empathy than the chronic pain-free controls. All between-group differences were clinically relevant. There were no differences in physician communication or physician empathy according to physician type in the exploratory analyses, and study group X physician type interaction effects were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cross-sectional study, patients with chronic pain reported having physicians with poorer communication and less empathy than chronic pain-free controls. Longitudinal research is needed to more clearly determine the temporal relationship between patients' chronic pain and physician communication and physician empathy during medical encounters.

The process and outcomes of chronic low back pain treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians: a retrospective cohort study

CONTEXT

Osteopathic physicians are trained to treat patients with musculoskeletal symptoms, to treat somatic dysfunction with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), and to avoid unnecessarily prescribing drugs such as opioids. It is also generally believed that osteopathic physicians provide a unique patient-centered approach to medical care that involves effective communication and empathy. Such training and characteristics of osteopathic medical care (OMC) may enhance clinical outcomes among patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to measure and compare the process and longitudinal outcomes of chronic low back pain (CLBP) treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians and to identify mediators of the treatment effects of OMC.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted utilizing adult participants with CLBP within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION) from April 2016 through December 2022. Participants having an osteopathic or allopathic physician for at least 1 month prior to registry enrollment were included and followed at quarterly intervals for up to 12 months. Physician communication and physician empathy were measured at registry enrollment. Opioid prescribing and effectiveness and safety outcomes were measured at registry enrollment and for up to 12 months and were analyzed with generalized estimating equations to compare participants treated by osteopathic vs. allopathic physicians. Multiple mediator models, including physician communication, physician empathy, opioid prescribing, and OMT, with covariate adjustments, were utilized to identify mediators of OMC treatment effects.

RESULTS

A total of 1,079 participants and 4,779 registry encounters were studied. The mean (SD) age of participants at enrollment was 52.9 (13.2) years, 796 (73.8 %) were female, and 167 (15.5 %) reported having an osteopathic physician. The mean physician communication score for osteopathic physicians was 71.2 (95 % CI, 67.6-74.7) vs. 66.2 (95 % CI, 64.8-67.7) for allopathic physicians (p=0.01). The respective mean scores for physician empathy were 41.6 (95 % CI, 39.9-43.2) vs. 38.3 (95 % CI, 37.6-39.1) (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in opioid prescribing for low back pain between osteopathic and allopathic physicians. Although participants treated by osteopathic physicians reported less severe nausea and vomiting as adverse events potentially attributable to opioids in a multivariable model, neither result was clinically relevant. OMC was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) over 12 months. Physician empathy was a significant mediator of OMC treatment effects in each of the three outcome domains; however, physician communication, opioid prescribing, and OMT were not mediators.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings indicate that osteopathic physicians provide a patient-centered approach to CLBP treatment, particularly involving empathy, that yields significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and HRQOL over 12 months of follow-up.

Assessing patient experience of the tenets of osteopathic medicine

CONTEXT

Previous studies document that both osteopathic physicians and third-party observers identify an approach to the patient that is consistent with the philosophy and tenets of osteopathic medicine, often without investigating whether patients identify or are satisfied with it. Osteopathic physicians and the medical education community understand the distinctiveness of an osteopathic approach to the patient. Understanding the outcomes of an osteopathic approach to patient care includes confirming whether patients experience the tenets of osteopathic medicine in physician visits and, if so, how it relates to their experience of physician empathy and satisfaction with the visit.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to assess patient experience of the tenets of osteopathic medicine, physician empathy, and satisfaction with the visit and to compare the results for patients who saw DOs with those who saw MD physicians.

METHODS

More than 2000 patients at four outpatient clinic facilities were surveyed after a clinical visit on 22 prompts regarding their experiences of physician behaviors, physician empathy, and their own satisfaction with the encounter. Adult patients who were treated by an osteopathic or allopathic physician for a nonemergency encounter and who were not pregnant were included in the analysis. Survey results for 1,330 patient-physician encounters were analyzed utilizing linear regression models comparing constructs representing patient experiences of the tenets of osteopathic medicine (Tenets), physician empathy (Physician Empathy), satisfaction (Satisfaction) with the encounter, as well as additional demographic and encounter variables.

RESULTS

Approximately 23.8 % of patients approached during the study period completed a survey (n=2,793), and among those, 54.7 % of patients who consented to the study and who saw a physician provider (n=1,330/2,431) were included. Significant (p≤0.01), positive associations among patient experiences of Satisfaction with the visit and Physician Empathy were observed among those who saw both DO and MD physicians. Patients experienced the Tenets during encounters with both DO and MD physicians, but linear regression showed that their experience of the Tenets was significantly (p≤0.01) and positively explained by their experience of Physician Empathy (β=0.332, p=0.00, se=0.052) and Satisfaction with the visit (β=0.209, p=0.01, se=0.081) only when the physician was a DO.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients identified physician behaviors consistent with the Tenets and positively associated their experiences of Physician Empathy and Satisfaction with the visit regardless of physician training background. Patient experience of the Tenets significantly explained their experiences of Physician Empathy and Satisfaction after visits with a DO but not after visits with an MD.

The priorities, challenges, and scope of clinical communication teaching perceived by clinicians from different disciplines: a Hong Kong case study

Background

In the absence of a well-rounded syllabus that emphasises both interpersonal and medical dimensions in clinical communication, medical students in the early stages of their career may find it challenging to effectively communicate with patients, especially when dealing with perceived priorities and challenges across different disciplines.

Methods

To explore the priorities, challenges, and scope of clinical communication teaching as perceived by clinicians from different clinical disciplines, we recruited nine medical educators, all experienced frontline clinicians, from eight disciplines across seven hospitals and two medical schools in Hong Kong. They were interviewed on their clinical communication teaching in the Hong Kong context, specifically its priorities, challenges, and scope. We then performed interpretative phenomenological analysis of the interview data.

Results

The interview data revealed five themes related to the priorities, challenges, and scope of clinical communication teaching across a wide range of disciplines in the Hong Kong context, namely (1) empathising with patients; (2) using technology to teach both the medical and interpersonal dimensions of clinical communication; (3) shared decision-making with patients and their families: the influence of Chinese collectivism and cultural attitudes towards death; (4) interdisciplinary communication between medical departments; and (5) the role of language in clinician–patient communication.

Conclusions

Coming from different clinical disciplines, the clinicians in this study approached the complex nature of clinical communication teaching in the Hong Kong context differently. The findings illustrate the need to teach clinical communication both specifically for a discipline as well as generically. This is particularly important in the intensive care unit, where clinicians from different departments frequently cooperate. This study also highlights how communication strategies, non-verbal social cues, and the understanding of clinical communication in the Hong Kong Chinese context operate differently from those in the West, because of differences in sociocultural factors such as family dynamics and hierarchical social structures. We recommend a dynamic teaching approach that uses role-playing tasks, scenario-based exercises, and similar activities to help medical students establish well-rounded clinical communication skills in preparation for their future clinical practice.

Optimizing chronic pain management through patient engagement with quality of life measures: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) represents a new approach for guiding chronic pain management because it is patient-centered and more likely to be understood and accepted by patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the value and utility of an eHealth intervention for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) that was primarily based on HRQOL measures and to measure the clinical outcomes associated with its use.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry) using participants screened from November 2019 through February 2021. A total of 331 registry participants within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia met the eligibility criteria, which included having CLBP and HRQOL deficits. Almost three-fourths of the participants were enrolled after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The participants were randomized to an eHealth intervention for HRQOL or wait list control. The primary outcome measures involved HRQOL based on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), including the SPADE cluster (Sleep disturbance, Pain interference with activities, Anxiety, Depression, and low Energy/fatigue) and each of its five component scales. Secondary outcome measures involved low back pain intensity and back-related functioning. Changes over time for each outcome measure reported by participants in each treatment group were compared utilizing the student's t-test for statistical significance and Cohen's d statistic for clinical importance. Outcomes were reported as between-group differences in change scores and the d statistic, with positive values favoring the experimental treatment group.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the experimental and control treatment groups for changes over time in any primary outcome measure. The d statistic (95% confidence interval) for the difference between the experimental and control treatment groups on the SPADE cluster was 0.04 (-0.18-0.25). The corresponding d statistics for the SPADE scales ranged from -0.06 (-0.27 to 0.16) for anxiety to 0.11 (-0.10 to 0.33) for sleep disturbance. There were also no significant or clinically important differences between the experimental and control treatment groups on the secondary outcome measures. Additionally, in subgroup analyses involving participants treated by osteopathic vs allopathic physicians, no significant interaction effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The eHealth intervention studied herein did not achieve statistically significant or clinically important improvements in any of the primary or secondary outcome measures. However, the validity and generalizability of the findings may have been limited by the unforeseen onset and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic shortly after beginning the trial.

Preventing progression from chronic to widespread pain and its impact on health-related quality of life: a historical cohort study of osteopathic medical care

CONTEXT

It is generally acknowledged that osteopathic physicians take a holistic approach to patient care. This style may help prevent the progression of painful musculoskeletal conditions, particularly if combined with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT).

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to determine if osteopathic medical care lowers the risk of progression from localized chronic low back pain to widespread pain and lessens the impact of pain on health-related quality of life.

METHODS

A historical cohort study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry) using data acquired from April 2016 through March 2021. Registry participants aged 21-79 years with chronic low back pain at the baseline encounter were potentially eligible for inclusion if they had a treating physician, completed all four quarterly follow-up encounters, and did not report physician crossover at the final 12-month encounter. Eligible participants were classified according to the type of physician provider at baseline and thereby into osteopathic or allopathic medical care groups. Participants were also classified according to prior use of OMT at the final encounter. Widespread pain was measured at baseline and each quarterly encounter to determine the period prevalence rate of widespread pain and its severity over 12 months using the Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain recommended by the National Institutes of Health. Participants who reported "not being bothered at all" by widespread pain during each encounter were classified as not having widespread pain, whereas those who were bothered "a little" or "a lot" at any quarterly encounter were classified as having widespread pain. The severity of widespread pain was measured by summing participant responses at each encounter. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System was used at each encounter to measure health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) scores for physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, participation in social roles and activities, and pain interference with activities.

RESULTS

A total of 462 participants were studied, including 101 (21.9%) in the osteopathic medical care group and 73 (15.8%) who used OMT. The mean age of participants at baseline was 52.7 ± 13.2 years (range, 22-79 years) and 336 (72.7%) were female. A lower period prevalence rate of widespread pain was observed in the osteopathic medical care group (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; p=0.006) and in the OMT group (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; p=0.004), although the latter finding did not persist after adjustment for potential confounders. The osteopathic medical care and OMT groups both reported lower widespread pain severity. The osteopathic medical care group also reported better age- and sex-adjusted outcomes for each of the seven HRQOL dimensions throughout the study. The OMT group reported better outcomes in five of the HRQOL dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the view that osteopathic physicians practice a holistic approach to medical care that manifests itself through a lower risk of progression from chronic low back pain to widespread pain, lower widespread pain severity, and lesser deficits in HRQOL. Similar findings were generally associated with OMT use.

Socioeconomic, racial and ethnic differences in patient experience of clinician empathy: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Empathy is essential for high quality health care. Health care disparities may reflect a systemic lack of empathy for disadvantaged people; however, few data exist on disparities in patient experience of empathy during face-to-face health care encounters with individual clinicians. We systematically analyzed the literature to test if socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity disparities exist in patient-reported experience of clinician empathy.

METHODS

Using a published protocol, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsychINFO for studies using the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure, which to date is the most commonly used and well-validated methodology for measuring clinician empathy from the patient perspective. We included studies containing CARE Measure data stratified by SES and/or race/ethnicity. We contacted authors to request stratified data, when necessary. We performed quantitative meta-analyses using random effects models to test for empathy differences by SES and race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (n = 9,708 patients) were included. We found that, compared to patients whose SES was not low, low SES patients experienced lower empathy from clinicians (mean difference = -0.87 [95% confidence interval -1.72 to -0.02]). Compared to white patients, empathy scores were numerically lower for patients of multiple race/ethnicity groups (Black/African American, Asian, Native American, and all non-whites combined) but none of these differences reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest an empathy gap may exist for patients with low SES. More research is needed to further test for SES and race/ethnicity disparities in clinician empathy and help promote health care equity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration (PROSPERO): CRD42019142809.

DERMS DO 5: A Proposed Curriculum for Dermatologic Training in 5 Osteopathic Competencies

Dermatology programs seeking osteopathic recognition under the new single graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system are required to demonstrate osteopathic competencies within their teaching curriculum. Although the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has put forth guidelines to obtain osteopathic recognition, ambiguity lingers regarding specialty-specific content that would fulfill these requirements. To date, there are no set curriculum guidelines addressing osteopathic principles within the field of dermatology. In this article, we review the existing literature surrounding key competencies and propose a dermatology-focused educational model, “DERMS (Direct, Empathy, Restore, Mobilize, Senses) DO 5,” to encourage the teaching of osteopathic competencies within GME training programs. Our proposed curriculum model addresses the 5 osteopathic care models and applications of osteopathic manipulative treatment within the realistic realm of dermatology.

2019 United States Osteopathic Medical Regulatory Summit: Consensus, Recommendations, and Next Steps in Defining Osteopathic Distinctiveness

Background

Osteopathic distinctiveness is a result of professional education, identity formation, training, credentialing, and qualifications. With the advancement of a single graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system and the continued growth of the osteopathic medical profession, osteopathic distinctiveness and professional identity are seen as lacking clarity and pose a challenge.

Summit

To achieve consensus on a succinct definition of osteopathic distinctiveness and to identify steps to more clearly define and advance that distinctiveness, particularly in professional self-regulation, a representative group of osteopathic medical students, residents, physicians, and members of the licensing, GME, and undergraduate medical education (UME) communities convened the 2019 United States Osteopathic Medical Regulatory Summit in February 2019. Key features of osteopathic distinctiveness were discussed. Growth in the profession; changes in health care delivery, technology, and demographics within the profession and patient communities; and associated challenges and opportunities for osteopathic medical practice and patients were considered.

Consensus

Osteopathic medicine is a distinctive practice that brings unique, added value to patients, the public, and the health care community at large. A universal definition and common understanding of that distinctiveness is lacking. Efforts to unify messaging that defines osteopathic distinctiveness, to align the distinctive elements of osteopathic medical education and professional self-regulation across a continuum, and to advance research on care and educational program outcomes are critical to the future of the osteopathic medical profession.

Recommendations

(1) Convene a task force of groups represented at the Summit to develop a succinct and consistent message defining osteopathic distinctiveness. (2) Demonstrate uniqueness of the profession through research demonstrating efficacy of care and patient outcomes, adding to the public good. (3) Harmonize GME and UME by beginning to align entrustable professional activities with UME milestones. (4) Convene representatives from osteopathic specialty colleges and certification boards to define curricular elements across GME, certification, and osteopathic continuous certification. (5) Build on the Project in Osteopathic Medical Education and Empathy study.

Osteopathic Manipulation in the Management of Chronic Pain: Current Perspectives

Chronic pain is a common condition that often interferes with work or other activities. Guidelines support the use of non-pharmacological treatments, such as spinal manipulation, in patients with chronic pain. Osteopathic physicians in the United States are uniquely positioned to manage chronic pain because their professional philosophy embraces the biopsychosocial model and they are trained in the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to complement conventional medical care. This narrative review provides current perspectives on the osteopathic approach to chronic pain management, including evidence for the efficacy of OMT based on systematic searches of the biomedical literature and the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Men, persons with low levels of education, and non-White and Hispanic patients are significantly less likely to have received OMT during their lifetime. Patients with low back and neck pain are most likely to be treated with OMT, and osteopathic manipulative medicine specialty physicians and family medicine physicians most often use OMT. However, many osteopathic physicians report using OMT infrequently. Although OMT is considered safe, based on millions of patient encounters over more than a century, there is limited evidence on its efficacy in treating chronic pain. The lone exception involves chronic low back pain, wherein there is evidence from systematic reviews, a large clinical trial, and observational studies. There is lesser evidence to support cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction associated with OMT for chronic pain. The only clinical practice guideline established by the American Osteopathic Association recommends that OMT should be used to treat chronic low back pain in patients with somatic dysfunction. Given the philosophy of osteopathic medicine, universal training of osteopathic physicians to use OMT, and national guidelines supporting non-pharmacological treatments for chronic pain, it is unclear why OMT use is reported to be remarkably low in physician surveys.