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

Impact of professional experience on clinical judgment and muscular response in various neuromuscular tests

Muscle testing is an integral component in assessing musculoskeletal function and tailoring rehabilitation efforts. This study aimed i. to identify an objective evaluation system sensitive to analyze changes in different muscular conditions in different neuromuscular tests across a spectrum of professional experience levels; and ii. to analyze differences in objective parameters and clinical judgment between participants of different levels of expertise in different muscular conditions in different neuromuscular tests. Participants included 60 subjects with Level I to III expertise who performed blinded neuromuscular tests on the middle deltoid and rectus femoris muscles of 40 volunteer subjects. The methodology centered on standardizing test protocols to minimize variability, employing EMG to quantify muscle activity, thermography to capture thermographic muscular response, and digital dynamometry to measure muscular resistance. The findings revealed that while traditional methods like thermography and electromyography provide valuable insights, digital dynamometry stands out for its sensitivity in detecting muscle condition changes in neuromuscular test. Moreover, the data underscored the pivotal role of advanced training and expertise in enhancing the precision and accuracy of neuromuscular diagnostics, since there were significant differences in objective parameters and clinical judgment between participants of different levels of expertise in the different muscular conditions in Middle deltoid and Rectus femoris neuromuscular tests analyzed, presenting higher expertise participant clinical judgment like objective validated instrument.

Racial Differences in Movement-Related Appraisals and Pain Behaviors Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain

Research documents racial disparities in chronic low back pain (CLBP). Few studies have examined racial disparities in movement-related appraisals and no studies have examined anticipatory appraisals prior to or pain behaviors during functional activities among individuals with CLBP. This cross-sectional study examined racial differences in anticipatory appraisals of pain, concerns about harm, and anxiety, appraisals of pain and anxiety during movement, and observed pain behaviors during 3 activities of daily living (supine-to-standing bed task, sitting-to-standing chair task, floor-to-waist lifting task) in a sample (N = 126) of non-Hispanic Black (31.0%), Hispanic (30.2%), and non-Hispanic White (38.9%) individuals with CLBP. Hispanic participants reported more expected pain, concerns about harm, and pre-movement anxiety prior to the bed and chair tasks compared to non-Hispanic White participants. Hispanic participants reported more pain during the bed task and more anxiety during the bed and chair tasks compared to non-Hispanic White participants. Non-Hispanic Black participants reported more expected pain, concerns about harm, and pre-movement anxiety prior to the bed task and more pre-movement anxiety prior to the chair task compared to non-Hispanic White participants. Non-Hispanic Black participants reported more anxiety during the bed and chair tasks compared to non-Hispanic White participants. Non-Hispanic Black participants were observed to have significantly more verbalizations of pain during the bed task compared to non-Hispanic White participants. Current findings identify racial disparities in important cognitive-behavioral and fear-avoidance mechanisms of pain. Results indicate a need to revisit traditional theoretical and treatment models in CLBP, ensuring racial disparities in pain cognitions are considered. PERSPECTIVE: This study examined racial disparities in anticipatory and movement-related appraisals, and pain behaviors during activities of daily living among Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic individuals with CLBP. Racial disparities identified in the current study have potentially important theoretical implications surrounding cognitive-behavioral and fear-avoidance mechanisms of pain.

Investigating the relationship between pain indicators and observers' judgements of pain

BACKGROUND

Due to the inherent subjectivity of pain, it is difficult to make accurate judgements of pain in others. Research has found discrepancies between the ways in which perceived "objective" (e.g., medical evidence of injury) and "subjective" information (e.g., self-report) influence judgements of pain. This study aims to explore which potential cues (depictions of sensory input, brain activation, self-reported pain and facial expressions) participants are most influenced by when evaluating pain in others.

METHODS

First, 60 participants (23 women, 36 ± 10 years old) judged who was in more pain between two different pain indicators representing two different patients. These trials revealed which congruent indicator (i.e., two high pain indicators) would most influence participant decisions. Second, participants prescribed quantities of analgesia for one patient's pain based on two different pain indicators. These trials revealed which incongruent indicators (i.e., one high and one low indicator) would most influence participant decisions.

RESULTS

As predicted, facial expressions were perceived as subjective and were the least likely, among all pain indicators, to influence observer's judgements of pain. Participants relied upon indicators they perceived as objective. Self-report pain ratings had the greatest influence on participants judgements about how much analgesic cream to prescribe and was perceived as objective by half of the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that in situations where incongruent information was presented about an individual's pain, participants relied on pain indicators that they perceived to be objective. The current study provides important insights about biases that people hold when making judgements of pain in others.

SIGNIFICANCE

Interpretation and assessment of pain remains one of the largest barriers to pain management and involves complex, idiosyncratic processing. This study provides insights into what information participants view as critical in making attributions of pain when presented with multiple, seemingly incongruent sources of information.

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.

A Preliminary Study of Provider Burden in the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Perspectives of Physicians and People with Chronic Pain

This study compared perceptions of the burden of patient care and associated clinical judgments between physicians and people with chronic pain (PWCP) in a 2 × 3 × 2 between-subjects design that varied participant type, patient-reported pain severity (4/6-8/10), and supporting medical evidence (low/high). One hundred and nine physicians and 476 American Chronic Pain Association members were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 conditions. Respondents estimated the clinical burden they would assume as the treating physician of a hypothetical patient with chronic low back pain, and made clinical judgments regarding that patient. Physician burden ratings were significantly higher than PWCP ratings, and clinical impressions (eg, trust in pain report, medical attribution) and management concerns (eg, opioid abuse risk) were relatively less favorable. Neither pain severity nor medical evidence affected burden ratings significantly. High medical evidence was associated with more favorable clinical impressions; higher pain severity led to more discounting of patient pain reports. Burden was significantly correlated with a range of clinical judgments. Results indicate that physicians and PWCP differ in their perceptions of provider burden and related clinical judgments in ways that could impact treatment collaboration. Further research is needed that examines provider burden in actual clinical practice. PERSPECTIVE: Physicians and people with chronic pain (PWCP) estimated the clinical burden of patient care and made judgments about a hypothetical patient with chronic pain. Physician burden ratings were higher and clinical judgments less favorable, relative to PWCP respondents. These differences could impact treatment collaboration and merit study in clinical practice.

Are Prescription Opioids Driving the Opioid Crisis? Assumptions vs Facts

Objective

Sharp increases in opioid prescriptions, and associated increases in overdose deaths in the 2000s, evoked widespread calls to change perceptions of opioid analgesics. Medical literature discussions of opioid analgesics began emphasizing patient and public health hazards. Repetitive exposure to this information may influence physician assumptions. While highly consequential to patients with pain whose function and quality of life may benefit from opioid analgesics, current assumptions about prescription opioid analgesics, including their role in the ongoing opioid overdose epidemic, have not been scrutinized.

Methods

Information was obtained by searching PubMed, governmental agency websites, and conference proceedings.

Results

Opioid analgesic prescribing and associated overdose deaths both peaked around 2011 and are in long-term decline; the sharp overdose increase recorded in 2014 was driven by illicit fentanyl and heroin. Nonmethadone prescription opioid analgesic deaths, in the absence of co-ingested benzodiazepines, alcohol, or other central nervous system/respiratory depressants, are infrequent. Within five years of initial prescription opioid misuse, 3.6% initiate heroin use. The United States consumes 80% of the world opioid supply, but opioid access is nonexistent for 80% and severely restricted for 4.1% of the global population.

Conclusions

Many current assumptions about opioid analgesics are ill-founded. Illicit fentanyl and heroin, not opioid prescribing, now fuel the current opioid overdose epidemic. National discussion has often neglected the potentially devastating effects of uncontrolled chronic pain. Opioid analgesic prescribing and related overdoses are in decline, at great cost to patients with pain who have benefited or may benefit from, but cannot access, opioid analgesic therapy.