Catastrophizing, Solicitous Responses From Significant Others, and Function in Individuals With Neuropathic Pain, Osteoarthritis, or Spinal Pain in the General Population

The Ultrashort Mental Health Screening Tool Is a Valid and Reliable Measure With Added Value to Support Decision-making

BACKGROUND

Mental health influences symptoms, outcomes, and decision-making in musculoskeletal healthcare. Implementing measures of mental health in clinical practice can be challenging. An ultrashort screening tool for mental health with a low burden is currently unavailable but could be used as a conversation starter, expectation management tool, or decision support tool.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Which items of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) are the most discriminative and yield a high correlation with the total scores of these questionnaires? (2) What is the construct validity and added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function) of an ultrashort four-item mental health screening tool? (3) What is the test-retest reliability of the screening tool? (4) What is the response time for the ultrashort screening tool?

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study. Data collection was part of usual care at Xpert Clinics, the Netherlands, but prospective measurements were added to this study. Between September 2017 and January 2022, we included 19,156 patients with hand and wrist conditions. We subdivided these into four samples: a test set to select the screener items (n = 18,034), a validation set to determine whether the selected items were solid (n = 1017), a sample to determine the added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function, n = 13,061), and a sample to assess the test-retest reliability (n = 105). Patients were eligible for either sample if they completed all relevant measurements of interest for that particular sample. To create an ultrashort screening tool that is valid, reliable, and has added value, we began by picking the most discriminatory items (that is, the items that were most influential for determining the total score) from the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ using chi-square automated interaction detection (a machine-learning algorithm). To assess construct validity (how well our screening tool assesses the constructs of interest), we correlated these items with the associated sum score of the full questionnaire in the test and validation sets. We compared the explained variance of linear models for pain and function using the screening tool items or the original sum scores of the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ to further assess the screening tool's construct validity and added value. We evaluated test-retest reliability by calculating weighted kappas, ICCs, and the standard error of measurement.

RESULTS

We identified four items and used these in the screening tool. The screening tool items were highly correlated with the PCS (Pearson coefficient = 0.82; p < 0.001), PHQ-4 (0.87; p < 0.001), and B-IPQ (0.85; p < 0.001) sum scores, indicating high construct validity. The full questionnaires explained only slightly more variance in pain and function (10% to 22%) than the screening tool did (9% to 17%), again indicating high construct validity and much added clinical value of the screening tool. Test-retest reliability was high for the PCS (ICC 0.75, weighted kappa 0.75) and B-IPQ (ICC 0.70 to 0.75, standard error of measurement 1.3 to 1.4) items and moderate for the PHQ-4 item (ICC 0.54, weighted kappa 0.54). The median response time was 43 seconds, against more than 4 minutes for the full questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

Our ultrashort, valid, and reliable screening tool for pain catastrophizing, psychologic distress, and illness perception can be used before clinician consultation and may serve as a conversation starter, an expectation management tool, or a decision support tool. The clinical utility of the screening tool is that it can indicate that further testing is warranted, guide a clinician when considering a consultation with a mental health specialist, or support a clinician in choosing between more invasive and less invasive treatments. Future studies could investigate how the tool can be used optimally and whether using the screening tool affects daily clinic decisions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, diagnostic study.

Chronic pain conditions and use of analgesics among nursing home patients with dementia

ABSTRACT

Pain management for patients with dementia is challenging because many experience pain while being unable to communicate their pain. The aim of this study was to describe pain, pain management, and to perform a thorough clinical examination of chronic pain conditions among patients with dementia. Residents (n = 498) from 12 nursing homes were assessed for dementia (Clinical Dementia Rating scale [CDR]) and for pain with the Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia-2 (MOBID-2) assessment form. Of all examined nursing home patients with dementia, 68% had moderate or severe chronic pain. The final study population (n = 262) with a CDR score of ≥1 and a MOBID-2 score of ≥3 were examined by pain expert physicians for chronic pain and categorized according to the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10/-11) classification systems. More than half (54.6%) had chronic pain conditions without underlying disease classified as chronic primary pain by ICD-11. Chronic widespread pain was the most prevalent (14.5%) followed by nonspecific pain from the back (13.4%), whereas the most prevalent chronic secondary pain conditions were chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis (15.4%) and stroke (8.0%). One-fourth received opioids, which was significantly associated with severe pain ( P < 0.001) compared with moderate pain, although no significant association was found between opioid use and the type of pain condition. Although knowledge of the severity and specific types of pain conditions is recommended to direct the choice of treatment, these areas are not sufficiently explored in the nursing home populations with dementia and may hinder a better treatment of pain in this population.

Pain catastrophising in the oro-facial pain population

BACKGROUND

Pain catastrophising is a maladaptive cognitive response characterised by an exaggerated negative interpretation of pain experiences. It has been associated with greater disability and poorer outcomes in chronic pain, to include several specific oro-facial pain conditions. The goal of this study was to examine pain catastrophising at a military oro-facial pain specialty clinic.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review (RCR) examined information collected at initial examination from 699 new patients seen between September 2016 and August 2019 at the Orofacial Pain Center at the Naval Postgraduate Dental School (Bethesda, MD). Pain catastrophising, pain characteristics, psychosocial factors and sleep were assessed using standardised scales. Linear regression was used to evaluate associations of patient characteristics and pain intensity with pain catastrophising. Mediation analyses were done to characterise the extent to which the relationship between pain intensity and pain catastrophising may be explained by anxiety, depression and insomnia.

RESULTS

Higher pain intensity, depression, anxiety, insomnia and younger age were each associated with higher pain catastrophising (all p < .05). A primary diagnosis of neuropathic pain was the strongest independent predictor of higher pain catastrophising. The relationship between pain intensity and pain catastrophising was partially mediated by anxiety, depression and insomnia.

CONCLUSIONS

In this RCR of a population of oro-facial pain patients, those diagnosed with neuropathic pain were most likely to display high levels of pain catastrophising, a characteristic which is associated with poor long-term pain outcomes. This is the first study to show that, independent of other patient characteristics, those suffering from neuropathic pains displayed the highest levels of pain catastrophising. This highlights the importance of also addressing psychosocial factors in the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions, which are commonly treated using a predominantly biomedical approach. Additionally, anxiety, depression and insomnia each partially explains the relationship between pain intensity and pain catastrophising.

Comparing objective cognitive impairments in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia

Existing studies on cognitive impairments in chronic pain do not investigate peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) or compare pain conditions in a satisfactory manner. Here we aimed to compare executive dysfunctions in PNP patients with fibromyalgia (FM) and healthy controls (HC). Patients who self-reported cognitive impairments were assessed according to criteria for PNP or FM. Seventy-three patients met criteria and completed testing on executive functioning and IQ measures. We also included twenty matched healthy controls. Regression models controlling for age, sex and IQ, tested associations between group category (PNP, FM or HC) and outcomes. If a substantial association was detected, we followed up with head-to-head comparisons between PNP and FM. Multivariate regression models then tested associations between executive functioning and pain type, controlling for significant confounders. Results from head-to-head comparison between pain conditions showed significant differences on years lived with pain (FM > PNP), the use of anticonvulsants (PNP > FM) and use of analgesics (PNP > FM). When controlled for all significant differences, PNP patients had significantly lower scores on an attention-demanding cued-recall task compared to FM. Poor performance on attention-demanding cued-recall task was associated with PNP, which translate into problems with retaining fast-pace or advanced information.

Pain Diagnosis, Pain Coping, and Function in Individuals with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

Purpose

Research supports a role for coping responses in adjustment to chronic pain. However, it is likely that some coping responses play a larger role in adjustment to pain for some individuals than others. The identification of the factors that moderate the association between coping responses and pain-related outcomes has important clinical implications. This study sought to determine if musculoskeletal pain diagnosis moderates the associations between eight pain-coping responses and both pain and function.

Patients and Methods

A non-probabilistic sample of 323 persons with different chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions completed measures of pain intensity, physical function, psychological function, and pain-coping responses.

Results

With only one exception, the frequency of use of pain-coping responses was not associated with pain diagnosis. Statistically significant moderation effects of pain diagnosis on the association between coping and pain outcomes were found for two coping responses: 1) support seeking when predicting pain intensity, and 2) resting when predicting both physical and psychological function.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that coping responses tend to play a similar role in patients' pain and function across different musculoskeletal pain conditions, with some important exceptions. If the findings are found to replicate in other samples, they would have important implications for determining when psychosocial pain treatments might (and when they might not) need to be adapted for specific diagnostic groups.

Patients With Thumb-base Osteoarthritis Scheduled for Surgery Have More Symptoms, Worse Psychological Profile, and Higher Expectations Than Nonsurgical Counterparts: A Large Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Psychological characteristics, such as depression, anxiety or negative illness perception are highly prevalent in patients with several types of OA. It is unclear whether there are differences in the clinical and psychological characteristics of patients with thumb carpometacarpal (CMC-1) osteoarthritis (OA) scheduled for nonsurgical treatment and those with surgical treatment.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the differences in baseline sociodemographic characteristics and clinical characteristics (including pain, hand function, and health-related quality of life) between patients with thumb CMC-1 OA scheduled for surgery and those treated nonoperatively? (2) What are the differences in psychological characteristics between patients scheduled for surgery and those treated nonsurgically, for treatment credibility, expectations, illness perception, pain catastrophizing, and anxiety and depression? (3) What is the relative contribution of baseline sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics to the probability of being scheduled for surgery?

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study using observational data. Patients with CMC-1 OA completed outcome measures before undergoing either nonsurgical or surgical treatment. Between September 2017 and June 2018, 1273 patients were screened for eligibility. In total, 584 participants were included: 208 in the surgery group and 376 in the nonsurgery group. Baseline sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics were compared between groups, and a hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relative contribution of psychological characteristics to being scheduled for surgery, over and above clinical and sociodemographic variables. Baseline measures included pain, hand function, satisfaction with the patient's hand, health-related quality of life, treatment credibility and expectations, illness perception, pain catastrophizing, and anxiety and depression.

RESULTS

Patients in the surgery group had longer symptom duration, more often a second opinion, higher pain, treatment credibility and expectations and worse hand function, satisfaction, HRQoL, illness perception and pain catastrophizing compared with the non-surgery group (effect sizes ranged from 0.20 to 1.20; p values ranged from < 0.001 to 0.044). After adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors, we found that the following increased the probability of being scheduled for surgery: longer symptom duration (standardized odds ratio [SOR], 1.86; p = 0.004), second-opinion visit (SOR, 3.81; p = 0.027), lower satisfaction with the hand (SOR, 0.65; p = 0.004), higher treatment expectations (SOR, 5.04; p < 0.001), shorter perceived timeline (SOR, 0.70; p = 0.011), worse personal control (SOR, 0.57; p < 0.001) and emotional response (SOR, 1.40; p = 0.040). The hierarchical logistic regression analysis including sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors provided the highest area under the curve (sociodemographics alone: 0.663 [95% confidence interval 0.618 to 0.709]; sociodemographics and clinical: 0.750 [95% CI 0.708 to 0.791]; sociodemographics, clinical and psychological: 0.900 [95% CI 0.875 to 0.925]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients scheduled to undergo surgery for CMC-1 OA have a worse psychological profile than those scheduled for nonsurgical treatment. Our findings suggest that psychological characteristics should be considered during shared decision-making, and they might indicate if psychological interventions, training in coping strategies, and patient education are needed. Future studies should prospectively investigate the influence of psychological characteristics on the outcomes of patients with CMC-1 OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.