Internist Judgments of Chronic Low Back Pain

The relationship between patients' income and education and their access to pharmacological chronic pain management: A scoping review

Background

Though chronic pain is widespread, affecting about one-fifth of the world's population, its impacts are disproportionately felt across the population according to socioeconomic determinants such as education and income. These factors also influence patients' access to treatment, including pharmacological pain management.

Aim

A scoping review was undertaken to better understand the association of socioeconomic factors with physicians' pain management prescribing patterns for adults living with chronic pain.

Methods

An electronic literature search was conducted using the EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases and 31 retrieved articles deemed relevant for analyses were critically appraised.

Results

The available evidence indicates that patients' lower socioeconomic status is associated with a greater likelihood of being prescribed opioids to manage their chronic pain and a decreased likelihood of receiving prescription medications to manage migraines, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.

Conclusions

These results suggest that individuals with lower socioeconomic status do not receive equal prescription medicine opportunities to manage their chronic pain conditions. This is influenced by a variety of intersecting variables, including access to care, the potential unaffordability of certain therapies, patients' health literacy, and prescribing biases. Future research is needed to identify interventions to improve equity of access to therapies for patients with chronic pain living in lower socioeconomic situations as well as to explain the mechanism through which socioeconomic status affects chronic pain treatment choices by health care providers.

Abbreviation

SES: socioeconomic status; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; IV: intravenous; SC: subcutaneous; bDMARDs: biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; DMARDS; disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; TNFi: tumour necrosis factor inhibitors; NSAIDs: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Psychometric Properties of a Healthcare Provider Burden Scale: Preliminary Results

Measures are lacking of the clinical burden that healthcare providers perceive in treating chronic conditions. This study presents a preliminary psychometric evaluation of a novel self-report measure of provider burden in the treatment of chronic pain. Data for eight burden items were available from vignette studies examining the effects of patient pain severity and medical evidence on clinical burden and judgments for chronic pain. Participants (N = 922) were 109 physicians and 813 non-physicians, all acting in the role of physician (232 community members without chronic pain, 105 community members with chronic pain, and 476 American Chronic Pain Association members with chronic pain). Factor analyses of burden items yielded one-factor solutions in all samples, with high factor loadings and adequate explained variance. Internal consistency reliability was uniformly high (≥ .87). Burden scores were significantly higher among physicians compared to non-physicians; non-physician groups did not differ on any burden score. Significant correlations of burden score with indicators of psychosocial complications in patient care supported scale validity. Burden score was not associated with gender, age, or education. Results provide initial support for the psychometric properties of a Healthcare Provider Burden Scale (HPBS). Research utilizing larger and representative healthcare provider groups is needed.

Patient Perceptions of Physician Burden in the Treatment of Chronic Pain

While patient perceptions of burden to caregivers is of recognized clinical significance among people with chronic pain, perceived burden to treating physicians has not been studied. This study examined how people with chronic pain perceived levels of medical evidence (low vs high) and pain severity (4,6,8/10) to influence physician burden and how burden then mediated expected clinical judgments. 476 people with chronic pain read vignettes describing a hypothetical patient with varying levels of medical evidence and pain severity from the perspective of a treating physician, rated the burden that patient care would pose, and made a range of clinical judgments. The effect of pain severity on clinical judgments was expected to interact with medical evidence and be conditionally mediated by burden. Although no associations with burden were found for the pain severity x medical evidence interaction or for pain severity alone, low levels of supporting medical evidence yielded higher burden ratings. Burden significantly mediated medical evidence effects on judgments of symptom credibility, clinical improvement, and psychosocial dysfunction. Results indicate that perceived physician burden negatively influenced judgments of patients with chronic pain, beyond the direct effects of medical evidence. Implications are discussed for clinical practice, as well as future research. PERSPECTIVE: : People with chronic pain expect physicians to view the care of patients without supporting medical evidence as burdensome. Higher burden is associated with less symptom credibility, more psychosocial dysfunction, and less treatment benefit. Perceived physician burden appears to impact how patients approach treatment, with potentially adverse implications for clinical practice.

Community Perspectives on Patient Credibility and Provider Burden in the Treatment of Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVE

This study examined factors influencing lay perceptions of a provider's clinical burden in providing care to a person with chronic pain.

DESIGN

In a between-subjects design that varied three levels of pain severity (4-6-8/10) with two levels of medical evidence (low/high), participants rated the credibility of pain reported by a hypothetical patient and psychosocial factors expected to mediate the effects of evidence and severity on a provider's burden of care.

SETTING

A randomized vignette study in which community participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk.

SUBJECTS

337 community participants.

METHODS

Using a Qualtrics platform, participants read one of six vignettes describing a hypothetical patient with varying levels of medical evidence and pain severity, and then rated perceived pain severity, pain credibility, psychosocial variables, and burden.

RESULTS

Serial mediation models accounted for all effects of medical evidence and pain severity on burden. Low medical evidence was associated with increased burden, as mediated through lower pain credibility and greater concerns about patient depression, opioid abuse, and learning pain management. Higher levels of reported pain severity were associated with increased burden, as mediated through greater pain discounting and concerns about opioid abuse.

CONCLUSIONS

The lay public is skeptical of chronic pain that is not supported by medical evidence or is reported at high levels of severity, raising concerns about psychosocial complications and drug seeking and expectations of higher burden of care. Such negative stereotypes can pose obstacles to people seeking necessary care if they or others develop a chronic pain condition.

An instrument for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation: development, evaluation, and inter-rater reliability

Background

Employees insured in pension insurance, who are incapable of working due to ill health, are entitled to a disability pension. To assess whether an individual meets the medical requirements to be considered as disabled, a work capacity evaluation is conducted. However, there are no official guidelines on how to perform an external quality assurance for this evaluation process. Furthermore, the quality of medical reports in the field of insurance medicine can vary substantially, and systematic evaluations are scarce. Reliability studies using peer review have repeatedly shown insufficient ability to distinguish between high, moderate and low quality. Considering literature recommendations, we developed an instrument to examine the quality of medical experts’ reports.

Methods

The peer review manual developed contains six quality domains (formal structure, clarity, transparency, completeness, medical-scientific principles, and efficiency) comprising 22 items. In addition, a superordinate criterion (survey confirmability) rank the overall quality and usefulness of a report. This criterion evaluates problems of inner logic and reasoning. Development of the manual was assisted by experienced physicians in a pre-test. We examined the observable variance in peer judgements and reliability as the most important outcome criteria. To evaluate inter-rater reliability, 20 anonymous experts’ reports detailing the work capacity evaluation were reviewed by 19 trained raters (peers). Percentage agreement and Kendall’s W, a reliability measure of concordance between two or more peers, were calculated. A total of 325 reviews were conducted.

Results

Agreement of peer judgements with respect to the superordinate criterion ranged from 29.2 to 87.5%. Kendall’s W for the quality domain items varied greatly, ranging from 0.09 to 0.88. With respect to the superordinate criterion, Kendall’s W was 0.39, which indicates fair agreement. The results of the percentage agreement revealed systemic peer preferences for certain deficit scale categories.

Conclusion

The superordinate criterion was not sufficiently reliable. However, in comparison to other reliability studies, this criterion showed an equivalent reliability value. This report aims to encourage further efforts to improve evaluation instruments. To reduce disagreement between peer judgments, we propose the revision of the peer review instrument and the development and implementation of a standardized rater training to improve reliability.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4387-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development and evaluation of a standardized peer-training in the context of peer review for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation

BACKGROUND

The German quality assurance programme for evaluating work capacity is based on peer review that evaluates the quality of medical experts' reports. Low reliability is thought to be due to systematic differences among peers. For this purpose, we developed a curriculum for a standardized peer-training (SPT). This study investigates, whether the SPT increases the inter-rater reliability of social medical physicians participating in a cross-institutional peer review.

METHODS

Forty physicians from 16 regional German Pension Insurances were subjected to SPT. The three-day training course consist of nine educational objectives recorded in a training manual. The SPT is split into a basic module providing basic information about the peer review and an advanced module for small groups of up to 12 peers training peer review using medical reports. Feasibility was tested by assessing selection, comprehensibility and subjective use of contents delivered, the trainers' delivery and design of training materials. The effectiveness of SPT was determined by evaluating peer concordance using three anonymised medical reports assessed by each peer. Percentage agreement and Fleiss' kappa (κ_m) were calculated. Concordance was compared with review results from a previous unstructured, non-standardized peer-training programme (control condition) performed by 19 peers from 12 German Pension Insurances departments. The control condition focused exclusively on the application of peer review in small groups. No specifically training materials, methods and trainer instructions were used.

RESULTS

Peer-training was shown to be feasible. The level of subjective confidence in handling the peer review instrument varied between 70 and 90%. Average percentage agreement for the main outcome criterion was 60.2%, resulting in a κ_m of 0.39. By comparison, the average percentage concordance was 40.2% and the κ_m was 0.12 for the control condition.

CONCLUSION

Concordance with the main criterion was relevant but not significant (p = 0.2) higher for SPT than for the control condition. Fleiss' kappa coefficient showed that peer concordance was higher for SPT than randomly expected. Nevertheless, a score of 0.39 for the main criterion indicated only fair inter-rater reliability, considerably lower than the conventional standard of 0.7 for adequate reliability.

Psychological Distress in Out-Patients Assessed for Chronic Pain Compared to Those with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background. Patients diagnosed with chronic pain (CP) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) represent two samples with overlapping symptoms, such as experiencing significant pain. Objectives. To compare the level of psychological distress among patients diagnosed CP attending a specialist pain clinic with those attending a specialist RA clinic. Measures. A cross-sectional study was conducted at an academic specialist chronic pain and rheumatology clinic. Participants. 330 participants included a CP group (n = 167) and a RA group (n = 163) completed a booklet of questionnaires regarding demographic characteristics, duration, and severity of their pain. Psychological and personality variables were compared between the CP and RA participants using a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA). Results. Level of psychological distress based on the subscales of the DASS (depression, anxiety, and stress), PASS (escape avoidance, cognitive anxiety, fear of pain, and physiological anxiety), and PCS (rumination, magnification, and helplessness) was significantly higher in the CP group compared to the RA group. Categorization of individuals based on DASS severity resulted in significant differences in rates of depression and anxiety symptoms between groups, with a greater number of CP participants displaying more severe depressive and anxiety symptoms. Discussion and Conclusions. This study found greater levels of psychological distress among CP individuals referred to an academic pain clinic when compared to RA patients referred to an academic rheumatology clinic.

Medical Evidence Influence on Inpatients and Nurses Pain Ratings Agreement

Biased pain evaluation due to automated heuristics driven by symptom uncertainty may undermine pain treatment; medical evidence moderators are thought to play a role in such circumstances. We explored, in this cross-sectional survey, the effect of such moderators (e.g., nurse awareness of patients' pain experience and treatment) on the agreement between n = 862 inpatients' self-reported pain and n = 115 nurses' pain ratings using a numerical rating scale. We assessed the mean of absolute difference, agreement (κ-statistics), and correlation (Spearman rank) of inpatients and nurses' pain ratings and analyzed congruence categories' (CCs: underestimation, congruence, and overestimation) proportions and dependence upon pain categories for each medical evidence moderator (χ² analysis). Pain ratings agreement and correlation were limited; the CCs proportions were further modulated by the studied moderators. Medical evidence promoted in nurses overestimation of low and underestimation of high inpatients' self-reported pain. Knowledge of the negative influence of automated heuristics driven by symptoms uncertainty and medical-evidence moderators on pain evaluation may render pain assessment more accurate.

Medical Judgments Across the Range of Reported Pain Severity: Clinician and Lay Perspectives

BACKGROUND

While increasing evidence suggests that observers discount high-severity chronic pain, factors that occasion such discounting are poorly understood, particularly regarding health provider vs lay perspectives.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the effects of supporting medical evidence and comorbid psychological distress (pain behavior) on medical student and lay clinical judgments of increasingly severe patient pain reports.

DESIGN

In a 2 × 2 × 2 × (7) mixed between- and within-subject design, participants (medical students vs lay) made clinical judgments after reading vignettes describing a hypothetical patient that varied in levels of medical evidence and pain behavior (low vs high) and pain severity (4/10-10/10).

SUBJECTS

Fourth-year medical students (N = 115) and lay persons in the community (N = 300) participated in this research.

RESULTS

While both medical student and lay judgments plateaued at high levels of pain severity, judgments regarding cause (medical vs psychological), treatment (opioid prescription), and disability showed growing divergence as levels of reported pain severity increased. Divergence relative to medical and psychological causes of pain was found irrespective of the level of supporting medical evidence; divergence relative to opioid treatment and support for a disability claim was found when supporting medical evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate differing expectations of chronic pain treatment for health care providers relative to the lay public that could impact clinical care, especially at high pain severity levels, where lay expectations diverge significantly from those of health professionals.

The influence of contextual variables on judgments about patients and their pain

OBJECTIVE

Professional judgments about persistent pain are influenced by contextual variables, which are features relating to the patient, the assessor, or the broader situation. Such judgments directly inform assessment and treatment and therefore represent an important area of research. While current formulations of persistent pain adopt a biopsychosocial framework, contextual variables relating to psychosocial information have not been well examined in the literature.

DESIGN

We employed a within-subjects experimental vignette paradigm to investigate the influence of four contextual variables, 2 (medical evidence: present vs absent) × 2 (pain behavior: present vs absent) × 2 (referral to a psychologist: yes vs no) × 2 (responsibility: onset controllable vs onset uncontrollable), on perceptions of pain. Judgments about patients with chronic low back pain were made across several dimensions.

SUBJECTS

One hundred sixteen medical and nursing students.

RESULTS

Main findings revealed that identifiable pain pathology led to increased ratings of pain intensity and emotional distress, and decreased perceived likelihood of malingering. Pain behavior and referral to a psychologist were also found to increase ratings of pain intensity and emotional distress. Encouragingly, psychological referral was not found to increase the perceived likelihood of malingering. Responsibility for the initial injury was found to influence judgments, but this occurred in interaction with medical evidence as well as pain behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that contextual variables have an important influence on medical and nursing students' perceptions of patients and their pain. Theoretical and practical implications for provider training and community education are discussed.

The dilemma of diagnostic uncertainty when treating people with chronic low back pain: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how physiotherapists prescribe execise for people with non-specific chronic low back pain in the absence of definitive or differential diagnoses.

DESIGN

Four guided focus groups were conducted to gather the views of physiotherapists working in primary care.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

Twenty-three primary care physiotherapists from metropolitan Melbourne, Australia, were identified from professional organization member lists and publicly available records. They were recruited via email and assembled for focus groups based on eligibility, availability and location.

MAIN MEASURES

Discussions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed for themes by three independent researchers.

RESULTS

The 'dilemma created by diagnostic uncertainty' emerged as a significant overarching theme with the following subthemes. Physiotherapists: (1) perceive that care-seekers want a clear diagnosis, (2) are challenged by diagnostic uncertainty, (3) are critical when patients fail to improve, (4) feel unprepared by traditional education models and (5) seek support from experienced colleagues. Physiotherapists report needing to: (1) educate care-seekers about their injury/diagnosis, despite diagnostic uncertainty, and (2)observe rapid health outcome improvements. They exhibit potentially negative behaviours, including blame attribution, when this does not occur.

CONCLUSIONS

Physiotherapists appear under-prepared for the challenges of working with people with chronic conditions. Quality research is warranted to determine best practice in supporting practitioners in the development of suitable therapeutic behaviours to deal with this challenging patient interface.

Fear-avoidance beliefs and pain avoidance in low back pain--translating research into clinical practice

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

For patients with low back pain, fear-avoidance beliefs (FABs) represent cognitions and emotions that underpin concerns and fears about the potential for physical activities to produce pain and further harm to the spine. Excessive FABs result in heightened disability and are an obstacle for recovery from acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain.

PURPOSE

This article summarizes past research concerning the etiology, impact, and assessment of FABs; reviews the results and relevance to clinical practice of trials that have addressed FAB as part of low back pain treatment; and lists areas in need of further study.

STUDY DESIGN

This article reports on a plenary presentation and discussion of an expert panel and workshop entitled "Addressing fear-avoidance beliefs in a fear-avoidant world--translating research into clinical practice" that was held at Forum X, Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, during June 2009, at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, MA, USA.

METHODS

Important issues including the definition, etiology, impact, and treatment of FAB on low back pain outcomes were reviewed by six panelists with extensive experience in FAB-related research. This was followed by a group discussion among 40 attendees. Conclusion and recommendations were extracted by the workshop panelist and summarized in this article.

RESULTS

Fear-avoidance beliefs are derived from both emotionally based fears of pain and injury and information-based beliefs about the soundness of the spine, causes of spine degeneration, and importance of pain. Excessively elevated FABs, both in patients and treating health care providers, have a negative impact on low back pain outcomes as they delay recovery and heighten disability. Fear-avoidance beliefs may be best understood when patients are categorized into subgroups of misinformed avoiders, learned pain avoiders, and affective avoiders as these categories elucidate potential treatment strategies. These include FAB-reducing information for misinformed avoiders, pain desensitizing treatments for pain avoiders, and fear desensitization along with counseling to address the negative cognition in affective avoiders. Although mixed results have been noted, most clinical trials have documented improved outcomes when FAB is addressed as part of treatment. Deficiencies in knowledge about brief methods for assessing FAB during clinical encounters, the importance of medical explanations for back pain, usefulness of subgroup FABs, core points for information-based treatments, and efficient strategies for transferring FAB-reducing information to patients hamper the translation of FAB research into clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

By incorporating an understanding of FAB, clinicians may enhance their ability to assess the predicaments of their patients with low back pain and gain insight into potential value of corrective information that lessen fears and concerns on well-being of their patients.

Do clinicians working within the same context make consistent return-to-work recommendations?

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare providers play important roles in the process of making return-to-work (RTW) recommendations, which have important consequences for injured workers and their employers. We studied the inter-rater reliability of RTW determinations between clinicians in a specific workers' compensation setting.

METHODS

Three case scenarios were given to clinicians working at one rehabilitation facility to examine consistency between clinicians in RTW recommendations. Additionally, we examined what information clinicians relied on to make decisions. Analysis included percentage agreement and other descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-six clinicians (13 physiotherapists, 10 occupational therapists, 8 exercise therapists, and 5 physicians) responded to the questionnaire. Subjects showed a high percentage agreement regarding RTW readiness on fracture and dislocation scenarios (97.2 and 94.4%, respectively), while agreement on a back pain scenario was modest (55.6%). In all cases, more than 50% of clinicians relied on biomedical information, such as physical examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians demonstrated a high level of agreement (>94%) when making RTW recommendations for injuries with clear pathology. However, a lower level of agreement (56%) was observed for back pain where the etiology of pain and disability is often more complex. Clinicians most commonly recommended RTW with restrictions, underlining the importance of workplace accommodations and modified duties in facilitating resumption of work.

Preparation, confidence, and attitudes about chronic noncancer pain in graduate medical education

BACKGROUND

Physicians report they feel ill-prepared to manage chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), in part because of inadequate training. Published studies and clinical observation demonstrate that trainees lack confidence and reflect negative attitudes about CNCP. Overall, there is minimal published guidance on specific specialty roles and responsibilities in CNCP management.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess resident preparation, confidence, and attitudes about CNCP across graduate medical education programs and to assess resident perception of roles and responsibilities in CNCP management.

METHODS

In 2006 we surveyed residents from 13 graduate medical education programs in 3 institutions about CNCP and report quantitative and qualitative analyses of survey responses from 246 respondents.

RESULTS

A total of 59% of respondents rated their medical school preparation and 36% rated their residency preparation as "fair" or "poor"; only 17% reported being "confident" or "very confident" in assessing patients with CNCP; and 30% used negative or derogatory terms (eg, manipulative, irritable, needy) to describe patients with CNCP. Respondents from postgraduate years 3-6 were more than twice as likely as postgraduate year 1 or postgraduate year 2 respondents (44% versus 21% and 20%, respectively) to use negative or derogatory terms (P  =  .0007). Respondents were significantly more likely to report that pain specialists are "good" or "excellent" in managing CNCP compared with generalists (73% versus 6%; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Education in pain management should begin in medical school and continue through graduate medical education, regardless of specialty. Early and sustained training interventions are needed to foster empathy in caring for patients with pain. Residency and fellowhip training should impart a clear understanding of each specialty's role and responsibilities in pain management to better foster patient-centered pain care.

Patient self-report measures of chronic pain consultation measures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Earlier studies have associated improvements in chronic pain outcomes with various consultation attributes, including: the legitimization of people's chronic pain experience, affective components of the therapeutic relationship, and reaching decisions about people's care through collaboration. Although studies have used patient self-report measures to examine how certain aspects of consultations contribute to managing chronic pain. The psychometric quality of these measures seems to have not been independently appraised to date.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties and administrative feasibility of published patient self-report consultation measures that were validated for people with chronic pain.

METHODS

Databases were searched to identify patient self-report consultation measures validated in chronic pain populations. Explicit review criteria for 8 measure attributes were developed for this review by synthesizing information from available guidelines. In total, 58 potentially relevant consultation measures were identified. Of these, 4 measures satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were critically appraised by 2 independent reviewers. Overall, the psychometric quality of the included measures was modest, particularly in terms of evidence for content validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability.

DISCUSSION

Each of the included measures assessed differing aspects of consultations, and their potential clinical and research uses are discussed. Recommendations are made to improve the psychometric quality of the included measures. In summary, more psychometric research needs to be undertaken to improve the existing measures' quality and broaden the scope of chronic pain consultation measures before studies may be conducted to develop a comprehensive understanding of the manner in which consultation attributes influence chronic pain outcomes.

Patient-provider interactions in the management of chronic pain: current findings within the context of shared medical decision making

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the literature on patient-provider interactions among patients with chronic pain conditions with an emphasis on shared medical decision making.

RESULTS

Key findings suggest that: 1) patients with chronic pain and health care providers are likely to have opposing attitudes and goals, with patients seeking "to be understood as individuals" and struggling to have their pain concerns legitimized while their health care providers may place a greater focus on diagnosis and treatment than quality of life concerns; and 2) female patients may face additional challenges when communicating their pain concerns with providers. Increased emphasis on communication training and efforts to promote a shared decision making process are proposed as possible mechanisms to improve patient-provider interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of chronic pain is often complex and may be further complicated when patients and health care providers have differing goals and attitudes concerning treatment. Difficulties in engaging in collaborative treatment decision making may result. Efforts to enhance patient-provider communication as well as to systematically examine nonspecific treatment factors are likely to promote effective management of chronic pain.

Evidence and expertise

This paper evaluates attempts to defend established concepts of expertise and clinical judgement against the incursions of evidence-based practice. Two related arguments are considered. The first suggests that standard accounts of evidence-based practice imply an overly narrow view of 'evidence', and that a more inclusive concept, incorporating 'patterns of knowing' not recognised by the familiar evidence hierarchies, should be adopted. The second suggests that statistical generalisations cannot be applied non-problematically to individual patients in specific contexts, and points out that this is why we need clinical judgement. In evaluating the first argument, I propose a criterion for what counts as evidence. It is a minimalist criterion but the 'patterns of knowing', referred to in the literature, still fail to meet it. In evaluating the second argument, I will outline the powerful empirical reasons we have for thinking that decisions based on research evidence are usually better than decisions based on clinical judgement; and show that current efforts to rehabilitate clinical judgement seriously underestimate the strength of these reasons. By way of conclusion, I will sketch the ways in which the concept of expertise will have to be modified if we accept evidence-based practice as a template for health-care.

Effect of treatment success and empathy on surgeon attributions for back surgery outcomes

This study examined the effect of conservative and surgical treatment success/failure on attributions by surgeons for low back surgical outcomes. It also examined empathy as a moderator of these attributions. Forty surgeons attributed surgical outcome in a hypothetical patient to physical and psychological factors. Results indicated that surgeons were less likely to attribute the cause of surgical failure to physical factors when the patient had already failed conservative treatment for low back pain. Surgeons also were more likely to attribute failed surgery, relative to successful surgery, to patient psychological factors. An interaction effect indicated that the latter difference was significant only when the patient had previously succeeded at conservative treatment. Empathy moderated this effect: empathic surgeons were less likely to see the failed surgery patient as psychologically culpable. This self-serving attributional style, as moderated by empathy, is discussed regarding its potential impact on patient care and physician judgment processes.

Factors Affecting Hospital Staff Judgments About Sickle Cell Disease Pain

Judgments about people with pain are influenced by contextual factors that can lead to stigmatization of patients who present in certain ways. Misplaced staff perceptions of addiction may contribute to this, because certain pain behaviors superficially resemble symptoms of analgesic addiction. We used a vignette study to examine hospital staff judgments about patients with genuine symptoms of analgesic addiction and those with pain behaviors that merely resemble those symptoms. Nurses and doctors at hospitals in London, UK, judged the level of pain, the likelihood of addiction, and the analgesic needs of fictitious sickle cell disease patients. The patient descriptions included systematic variations to test the effects of genuine addiction, pain behaviors resembling addiction, and disputes with staff, which all significantly increased estimates of addiction likelihood and significantly decreased estimates of analgesic needs. Participants differentiated genuine addiction from pain behaviors resembling addiction when making judgments about addiction likelihood but not when making judgments about analgesic needs. The treatment by staff of certain pain behaviors as symptoms of analgesic addiction is therefore a likely contributory cause of inadequate or problematic hospital pain management. The findings also show what a complex task it is for hospital staff to make sensitive judgments that incorporate multiple aspects of patients and their pain. There are implications for staff training, patient education, and further research.

Differences in prescription opioid analgesic availability: comparing minority and white pharmacies across Michigan

Little is known about physical barriers to adequate pain treatment for minorities. This investigation explored sociodemographic determinants of pain medication availability in Michigan pharmacies. A cross-sectional survey-based study with census data and data provided by Michigan community retail pharmacists was designed. Sufficient opioid analgesic supplies was defined as stocking at least one long-acting, short-acting, and combination opioid analgesic. Pharmacies located in minority (<or=70% minority residents) and white (>or=70% white residents) zip code areas were randomly selected by using a 2-stage sampling selection process (response rate, 80%). For the 190 pharmacies surveyed, most were located in white areas (51.6%) and had sufficient supplies (84.1%). After accounting for zip code median age and stratifying by income, pharmacies in white areas (odds ratio, 13.36 high income vs 54.42 low income) and noncorporate pharmacies (odds ratio, 24.92 high income vs 3.61 low income) were more likely to have sufficient opioid analgesic supplies (P < .005). Racial differences in the odds of having a sufficient supply were significantly higher in low income areas when compared with high income areas. Having a pharmacy located near a hospital did not change the availability for opioid analgesics. Persons living in predominantly minority areas experienced significant barriers to accessing pain medication, with greater disparities in low income areas regardless of ethnic composition. Differences were also found on the basis of pharmacy type, suggesting variability in pharmacist's decision making.

PERSPECTIVE

Michigan pharmacies in minority zip codes were 52 times less likely to carry sufficient opioid analgesics than pharmacies in white zip codes regardless of income. Lower income areas and corporate pharmacies were less likely to carry sufficient opioid analgesics. This study illustrates barriers to pain care and has public health implications.

The physician as disability advisor for patients with musculoskeletal complaints

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature about the performance of physicians as mediators of temporary and permanent disability for patients with chronic musculoskeletal complaints. To assess specifically the nature and variance of recommendations from physicians, factors influencing physician performance, and efforts to influence physician behavior in this area.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

While caring for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, physicians are often asked to recommend appropriate levels of activity and work. These recommendations have significant consequences for patients' general health, employment, and financial well-being.

METHODS

Medical literature search.

RESULTS

Physician recommendations limiting activity and work after injury are highly variable, often reflecting their own pain attitudes and beliefs. Patients' desires strongly predict disability recommendations (i.e., physicians often acquiesce to patients' requests). Other influences include jurisdiction, employer, insurer, and medical system factors. The most successful efforts to influence physician recommendations have used mass communication to influence public attitudes, while reinforcing the current standard of practice for physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician recommendations for work and activity have important health and financial implications. Systemic, multidimensional approaches are necessary to improve performance.

Race and socioeconomic differences in post-settlement outcomes for African American and Caucasian Workers' Compensation claimants with low back injuries

The purpose of this study was to predict post-settlement pain intensity, psychological distress, disability, and financial struggle among African American (n=580) and non-Hispanic Caucasian (n=892) Workers' Compensation claimants with single incident low back injury. The study was a population-based telephone survey conducted in three population centers in Missouri. Post-settlement outcomes were predicted from claimant demographics (race, age, gender); socioeconomic status (SES); diagnosis and legal representation; and Workers' Compensation resolution variables (treatment costs, temporary disability status, disability rating, settlement costs). Simultaneous-entry, hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses indicated that African American race and lower SES predicted higher levels of post-settlement pain intensity, psychological distress (general mental health, pain-related catastrophizing), disability (pain-related role interference), and financial struggle, independent of age, gender, diagnosis, legal representation, and Workers' Compensation resolution variables. The results suggest that African American race and lower SES-relative to Caucasian race and higher SES-are risk factors for poor outcomes after occupational low back injury. Mechanisms to explain these associations are discussed, including patient-level, provider-level, legal, and Workers' Compensation system-level factors.

Disparities in Occupational Low Back Injuries: Predicting Pain-Related Disability from Satisfaction with Case Management in African Americans and Caucasians

OBJECTIVE

To predict post-settlement pain-related disability from claimant race and satisfaction with Workers' Compensation case management.

DESIGN

Population-based survey with telephone interviewing.

SETTING

St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and Jackson County, Missouri.

PARTICIPANTS

African American and Caucasian Workers' Compensation claimants (1,475) with single incident low back injuries whose claims were settled between January 1, 2001 and June 1, 2002.

MEASURES

Workers' Compensation variables were obtained from the State of Missouri comprising treatment cost, temporary disability payment, disability rating, and settlement award. Satisfaction with Workers' Compensation case management was evaluated across five Likert-type rating scales. Pain-related disability was measured using the Pain Disability Index. Injury variables included diagnosis of disc injury or regional backache. Socioeconomic status included education and income. Demographic variables were race, age, and gender.

RESULTS

Path analysis indicated direct negative associations between satisfaction and disability. Race had a direct association with disability but was also mediated through other variables: African Americans received less treatment/compensation across the Workers' Compensation variables (relative to Caucasians), which predicted lower satisfaction. This pattern also held true for lower socioeconomic status claimants and those with regional backache.

CONCLUSIONS

For African Americans and lower socioeconomic status persons in the Workers' Compensation system, less treatment/compensation was associated with lower satisfaction with the process, which in turn predicted higher levels of post-settlement disability. Given that the function of Workers' Compensation is to reduce disability from work-related injuries, the current results suggest that the system produces inequitable outcomes for these groups.

Management of occupational back injuries: differences among African Americans and Caucasians

This study examined differences in the case management of occupational low back injuries in a large, racially diverse population of Workers' Compensation claimants in Missouri. Participants were African Americans (N=580) and non-Hispanic whites (N=892) who had filed occupational injury claims that were settled over an 18-month period. Telephone interview data were gathered regarding diagnoses, legal representation, demographics, and socioeconomic status. The Missouri Division of Workers' Compensation also provided information on medical and temporary disability expenditures, claim duration, final disability ratings, and settlement awards. Simultaneous-entry, hierarchical multiple and logistic regression analyses showed significant and substantial effects for injury-related variables, socioeconomic status, and race across all Workers' Compensation variables. Differences remained for both injury and African Americans and lower socioeconomic status workers after controlling for injury, and for African Americans after controlling for both injury and socioeconomic status. Because Workers' Compensation mandates equal access to treatment and disability reimbursement for all injured workers, the differences observed in this study may reflect sociocultural biases in disability management among healthcare providers.

The unequal burden of pain: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in pain

CONTEXT

Pain has significant socioeconomic, health, and quality-of-life implications. Racial- and ethnic-based differences in the pain care experience have been described. Racial and ethnic minorities tend to be undertreated for pain when compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

OBJECTIVES

To provide health care providers, researchers, health care policy analysts, government officials, patients, and the general public with pertinent evidence regarding differences in pain perception, assessment, and treatment for racial and ethnic minorities. Evidence is provided for racial- and ethnic-based differences in pain care across different types of pain (i.e., experimental pain, acute postoperative pain, cancer pain, chronic non-malignant pain) and settings (i.e., emergency department). Pertinent literature on patient, health care provider, and health care system factors that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in pain treatment are provided.

EVIDENCE

A selective literature review was performed by experts in pain. The experts developed abstracts with relevant citations on racial and ethnic disparities within their specific areas of expertise. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The abstracts were compiled for this manuscript. The draft manuscript was made available to the experts for comment and review prior to submission for publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the Institute of Medicine's report on health care disparities, racial and ethnic disparities in pain perception, assessment, and treatment were found in all settings (i.e., postoperative, emergency room) and across all types of pain (i.e., acute, cancer, chronic nonmalignant, and experimental). The literature suggests that the sources of pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities are complex, involving patient (e.g., patient/health care provider communication, attitudes), health care provider (e.g., decision making), and health care system (e.g., access to pain medication) factors. There is a need for improved training for health care providers and educational interventions for patients. A comprehensive pain research agenda is necessary to address pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities.