Timing of surgery in acute deep partial-thickness burns: A study protocol

For deep partial-thickness burns no consensus on the optimal treatment has been reached due to conflicting study outcomes with low quality evidence. Treatment options in high- and middle-income countries include conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed; and early excision and grafting. The majority of timing of surgery studies focus on survival rather than on quality of life. This study protocol describes a study that aims to compare long-term scar quality, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes between the treatment options. A multicentre prospective study will be conducted in the three Dutch burn centres (Rotterdam, Beverwijk, and Groningen). All adult patients with acute deep-partial thickness burns, based on healing potential with Laser Doppler Imaging, are eligible for inclusion. During a nine-month baseline period, standard practice will be monitored. This includes conservative treatment with dressings and topical agents, and excision and grafting of residual defects if needed 14-21 days post-burn. The subsequent nine months, early surgery is advocated, involving excision and grafting in the first week to ten days post-burn. The primary outcome compared between the two groups is long-term scar quality assessed by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale 3.0 twelve months after discharge. Secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes like quality of life and return to work. The aim of the study is to assess long-term scar quality in deep partial-thickness burns after conservative treatment with delayed excision and grafting if needed, compared to early excision and grafting. Adding to the ongoing debate on the optimal treatment of these burns. The broad range of studied outcomes will be used for the development of a decision aid for deep partial-thickness burns, to fully inform patients at the point of consent to surgery and support optimal person-centred care.

Pain expectations in neuropathic pain: Is it best to be optimistic?

BACKGROUND

Pain expectancy may be an important variable that has been found to influence the effectiveness of treatments for pain. Much of the literature supports a self-fulfilment perspective where expectations for pain relief predict the actual pain experienced. However, in conditions such as neuropathic pain (NeP) where pain relief is difficult to attain, expectations for pain relief could be unrealistic. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between realistic/unrealistic expectations and 6-month, post-treatment outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients with NeP (n = 789) attending tertiary care centres to determine the association between unrealistic (both positive and negative) and realistic expectations with outcomes after multidisciplinary treatment. An expectation variable with three categories was calculated: realistic expectations were those whose expected reduction in pain was similar to the observed mean group reduction in pain, while optimistic and pessimistic expectations were those who over- or under-estimated the expected response to treatment, respectively. The association between baseline realistic/unrealistic expectations and 6-month pain-related disability, catastrophizing and psychological distress was assessed.

RESULTS

Univariable analyses suggested that realistic expectations were associated with lower levels of disability, catastrophizing and psychological distress, compared to unrealistic expectations. However, after adjustment for baseline symptom severity, multivariable analysis revealed that patients with optimistic expectations had lower levels of disability, than those with realistic expectations. Those with pessimistic expectations had higher levels of catastrophizing and psychological distress at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings are largely congruent with the self-fulfilment perspective to expectations.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study defined realistic pain expectations with patient data. Examining the relationship between expectations between pain and disability in a large cohort of patients with neuropathic pain.

How do low back pain patients conceptualize their expectations regarding treatment? Content analysis of interviews

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to gain insight into how low back pain (LBP) patients conceptualize the construct of expectations regarding treatment.

METHODS

This study was nested within a mixed-method randomized clinical trial comparing three primary care interventions for LBP. A total of 77 participants with LBP lasting longer than 6 weeks were included; semi-structured interviews were conducted querying patients about their expectations for treatment. Also factors influencing their expectations were explored. Interviews were administered following enrollment into the study, but prior to study treatment. Two researchers independently conducted a content analysis using NVIVO 9 software.

RESULTS

LBP patients' expectations could be categorized in two main domains: outcome and process expectations, each with subdomains. Patients expressed expectations in all subdomains both as values (what they hoped) and probabilities (what they thought was likely). In multiple subdomains, there were differences in the nature (positive vs. negative) and frequency of value and probability expectations. Participants reported that multiple factors influenced their expectations of which past experience with treatment appeared to be of major influence on probability expectations.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study showed that LBP patients' expectations for treatment are multifaceted. Current measurement instruments do not cover all domains and subdomains of expectations. Therefore, we recommend the development of new or improved measures that make a distinction between value and probability expectations and assess process and/or outcome expectations covering multiple subdomains. Some of the influencing factors found in this study may be useful targets for altering patients' treatment expectations and improving health outcomes.