Functional assessment in patients with chronic pain: can physicians predict performance?

Sitting and standing tolerance in patients with chronic back pain: comparison between physician prediction and covert observation11No party having a direct interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the author(s) or on any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated

OBJECTIVES

To measure covertly observed continuous sitting and standing tolerance in patients with chronic back pain and to compare observations to physician predictions.

DESIGN

Blinded, prospective, cohort study.

SETTING

Ambulatory referral centers, both public and private, at 5 major medical centers in the eastern United States.

PARTICIPANTS

All volunteers (N=154; 64.0% women, mean age, 48.7y; 16.8% had active lawsuits) with diagnosis codes of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision consistent with thoracic and/or lumbosacral back pain were selected from a cohort of 651 outpatients with chronic pain enrolled in the Multiperspective Multidimensional Pain Assessment Protocol (MMPAP).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Continuous sitting and standing tolerance was measured by (1). covert observation of subjects during the MMPAP trial and (2). blinded expert physician prediction based on complete history and physical examination.

RESULTS

Most (124/154, 80.5%) subjects stood for 30 minutes or more and most (124/154, 80.5%) sat for 60 minutes or more. Overall, physicians underpredicted the ability to sit 60 minutes or more and to stand 30 minutes or more. Physician prediction showed poor correlation to covert observation for sitting tolerance (kappa=-.061, P=.221) and standing tolerance (kappa=-.021, P=.727).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of this sample demonstrated the ability to sit continuously 60 minutes or more and to stand continuously 30 minutes or more while being covertly observed. Expert physician prediction showed poor correlation to covertly observed sitting and standing tolerances, raising doubt about the validity of using physician evaluation to establish work restrictions in patients with chronic back pain. These findings are preliminary, follow only a brief period of covert observation, and indicate the need for further research in this area.

Haemophilia Utilization Group Study: assessment of functional health status in haemophilia

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between health care and utilization of that health care, and to provide a base measurement of health status in patients with haemophilia. Provider interview and retrospective chart review of 336 patients with haemophilia treated during 1995 at one of five comprehensive haemophilia treatment centres was conducted to measure patient health status characteristics and utilization of health care. Two health status scales were included. The first, the Self-Care Measure, was a four-point single item scale measuring the patient's ability for basic self-care, which was scored by a chart review and an interview with the health-care provider. The second, the Haemophilia Utilization Group Study (HUGS) Functional Status Measure, is a four-item, 10-point scale developed specifically for patients with haemophilia. Our sample represents 27% of actively treated patients in region IX. The mean score on the HUGS Functional Status Measure was 8.7 (SD=2.4). The HUGS scale exhibited a ceiling effect across all four scales: attitude (n=269, 80.1%), overall wellbeing (n=263, 78.3%), working (n=254, 75.6%) and orthopaedic status (n=195, 58.0%). Both higher total health-care costs and factor VIII annual costs were significantly associated with lower scores on the HUGS Functional Status Measure. Health status is a critical component in the assessment of the utilization and outcomes of care. In the absence of the availability of a patient interview, the HUGS Functional Status Measure can be used as one characteristic that explains the variation in the utilization of health care by patients with haemophilia.