Pain Medicine最新文献

Background: The availability of multidisciplinary care for the management of chronic pain is uncommon outside specialist clinics. The present study aims to determine the physical intervention use of patients participating in an online psychological pain management program and whether exposure to physical interventions in these patients alters treatment outcomes compared with patients who do not access physical interventions.

Methods: Data were obtained from 2 previously published randomized controlled trials of an online psychological pain management program. Physical intervention exposure (categories: none, 1-3 sessions, 4+ sessions) was assessed at baseline, after treatment, and at 3-month follow-up. Primary outcomes included depression, anxiety, pain intensity, and pain-related disability. Generalized estimating equation models were used to compare treatment outcomes among those with different physical intervention frequencies and periods of exposure. We assessed whether changes in primary outcomes differed (moderated) by the period and category of physical intervention exposure.

Results: Of the patients (n = 1074) who completed the baseline questionnaire across both randomized controlled trials, 470 (44%) reported physical intervention use at baseline, 383 (38%) reported physical intervention use after treatment, and 363 (42%) reported physical intervention use at 3-month follow-up. On average, there were moderate-large reductions from baseline to after treatment with respect to all outcomes (Cohen's d = 0.36-0.82). For all outcomes, the interaction of time by physical intervention exposure was statistically nonsignificant.

Conclusion: A substantial proportion of patients who participated in a psychologically informed pain management program were establishing, continuing, or stopping additional physical interventions. The frequency of and period of exposure to physical interventions did not appear to moderate treatment outcomes.

Clinical trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12613000252718 and ACTRN12615001003561). The website for registration information is https://www.anzctr.org.au.

Background: Subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), the most common cause of shoulder pain, can be treated through different treatments with similar effects. Therefore, in terms of deciding on the right treatment fit, patient preferences need to be understood. We aimed to identify treatment characteristics that delineate interventions (attributes) and corresponding sets of specific categorical range (attribute-levels) for SAPS.

Methods: This multiple method study systematically reviewed both qualitative and quantitative studies on patient preferences for treatment of SAPS, which informed semi-structured interviews with 9 clinicians and 14 patients. The qualitative data from the interviews was analyzed using the framework analysis formulated by Ritchie and Spencer. Attributes and attribute levels of the systematic review and interviews were summarized and categorized.

Results: The search resulted in 2607 studies, 16 of which met the eligibility criteria. The review identified 120 potential attributes, which were synthesized into 25 potential attributes. Fourteen new potential attributes were identified through the interviews, equaling a total of 39 attributes across 11 categories. Levels for 37 attributes were identified through systematic review and interviews, we were unable to identify levels for 2 attributes.

Conclusions: This study identified attributes and attribute levels for the treatment of SAPS. There was a discrepancy in the frequency of the represented attributes between the literature and interviews. This study may improve the understanding of patient preferences for the treatment of SAPS and help individualize care. Our study informs a future discrete choice experiment and supports shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Objective: The statistical analysis typically used to compare pain before and after interventions assumes that scores are normally distributed. The present study evaluates whether numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, specifically NRS-11 scores, are indeed normally distributed in a clinically relevant cohort of adults with chronic axial spine pain before and after analgesic intervention.

Methods: Retrospective review from 4 academic medical centers of prospectively collected data from a uniform pain diary administered to consecutive patients after they had undergone medial branch blocks. The pain diary assessed NRS-11 scores immediately before injection and at 12 different time points after injection up to 48 hours. D'Agostino-Pearson tests were used to test normality at all time points.

Results: One hundred fifty pain diaries were reviewed, and despite normally distributed pre-injection NRS-11 scores (K2 = 0.655, P = .72), all post-injection NRS-11 data were not normally distributed (K2 = 9.70- 17.62, P = .0001-.008).

Conclusions: Although the results of parametric analyses of NRS-11 scores are commonly reported in pain research, some properties of the NRS-11 do not satisfy the assumptions required for these analyses. The data demonstrate non-normal distributions in post-intervention NRS-11 scores, thereby violating a key requisite for parametric analysis. We urge pain researchers to consider appropriate statistical analysis and reporting for non-normally distributed NRS-11 scores to ensure accurate interpretation and communication of these data. Practicing pain physicians should similarly recognize that parametric post-intervention pain score statistics might not accurately describe the data and should expect articles to utilize measures of normality to justify the selected statistical methods.

Objective: Research indicates that perceived injustice significantly influences pain-related outcomes and is associated with delayed recovery in adults. This systematic review examines the relationship between perceived injustice and pain-related outcomes in children with pain conditions.

Methods: A search of published studies in English in PubMed, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception through December 2022 were performed. The search criteria focused on studies that measured perceived injustice and pain-related outcomes in children with pain conditions. Out of 56 articles screened, 8 met the inclusion criteria, providing data on 1240 children with pain conditions.

Results: The average age of participants across all studies was 14.12 years (SD = 2.25), with 68.2% being female. There was strong evidence that higher perceived injustice is associated with worse pain intensity, functional disability, mental health outcomes, and emotional, social, and school functioning.

Conclusion: The results of this study underscore how perceptions of injustice are associated various pain-related outcomes across different domains of children's lives. The findings highlight the need for screening and treatments targeting injustice appraisals in pediatric populations with pain conditions. The discussion addresses possible determinants and mechanisms of perceived injustice, along with implications for research and clinical practice.

Background: Pain assessment and proper evaluation of pain are prerequisites for treatment of acute and chronic pain. Until now, most evaluations have used only resting pain intensity and a unidimensional scale, although multidimensional pain assessment and especially assessment of functional pain impact on activities are recommended. The Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) permits this multidimensional assessment, but no validated French translation exists.

Objectives: To validate the French translation of the multidimensional DVPRS, called the Functional Pain Scale (FPS), in multiple settings of acute and chronic pain.

Study design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Two large hospitals in the French-speaking region of Switzerland.

Methods: We recruited 232 patients from February 2022 to January 2023. Patients with acute or chronic pain in different settings received a paper questionnaire with both a numerical rating scale (NRS) and the FPS and a customized evaluation questionnaire. Correlation between the FPS and NRS, psychometric properties, and patient preferences were analyzed.

Results: Correlation between the FPS and NRS was high for the whole group of 232 patients, as well for all subgroups. The multi-item FPS scale showed excellent internal consistency. A large majority of patients, even those >75 years of age, preferred the FPS over the NRS and stated that the FPS was easy to use.

Conclusions: The study confirms that the French translation of the DVPRS (the FPS) is a valid measurement instrument for acute and chronic pain evaluation in a wide range of patient groups and is easy for patients to use.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05307380.