Non-traumatic Arm, Neck, and Shoulder Complaints in General Practice: Incidence, Course and Management

Non-traumatic complaints of arm, neck, and shoulder are common and can result in functional limitations in daily life and may sometimes lead to sickness absence. Reported symptoms are e.g. pain, tingling, stiffness, numbness, loss of hand coordination. When seeking medical care for these complaints, the general practitioner (GP) is usually the first person to consult. This thesis studies patients who consult their GP with a new non-traumatic complaint of arm, neck or shoulder, with a focus on incidence, course and management. The incidence study showed that a fulltime GP is consulted about 3 times every week for a new non-traumatic complaint of arm, neck, or shoulder, most frequently located at neck or shoulder. Six months after the first consultation with their GP, 46% of the patients in the cohort study reported no recovery. Next to several complaint specific variables, the psychosocial variables little social support and high score on somatization were predicitve of non-recovery at 6 months. Management upto 6 months after the first consultation most frequently consisted of prescribed analgesics and referral for physiotherapy. Specific and non-specific diagnostic subgroups differed in the frequency that corticosteroid injections were applied, and referrals to physiotherapy and to a medical specialist. In addition variables associated with five common management options within a few weeks after the first consultation were evaluated. Overall, besides diagnosis, most frequently long duration of complaints, more functional limitations but also several GP characteristics were associated with the application of a treatment option in non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints

Management in non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: differences between diagnostic groups

Arm, neck and/or shoulder complaints are common in western societies. In the Netherlands, general practice guidelines are issued on shoulder pain and epicondylitis only. Little is known about actual management of the total range of diagnoses. The objectives of the study are: to determine management in patients consulting the GP with a new episode of non-traumatic arm neck and shoulder complaints up to 6 months after the first consultation. To evaluate differences in management between patients with specific diagnoses versus non-specific diagnoses and between specific diagnostic groups. In a prospective cohort study in general practice. We recruited 682 eligible patients. Data on diagnosis, management, patient- and complaint-characteristics were collected. Co-occurrence of treatment options was presented in scaled rectangles. After 6 months, additional diagnostic tests had been performed in 18% of the patients, mainly radiographic examination (14%). Further, 49% had been referred for physiotherapy and 12% to the medical specialist. Patients with specific diagnoses were more frequently referred for specialist treatment, and patients with non-specific diagnoses for physiotherapy. Corticosteroid injections (17%) were mainly applied specific diagnoses (e.g. impingement syndrome, frozen shoulder, carpal tunnel and M. Quervain). Frequencies of prescribed medication (51%) did not differ between specific and non-specific

Kinesiophobia in patients with non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: a prospective cohort study in general practice

BACKGROUND: Complaints of arm, neck and shoulder are common in Western societies. Of those consulting a general practitioner (GP) with non-traumatic arm, neck or shoulder complaints, about 50% do not recover within 6 months.Kinesiophobia (also known as fear of movement/(re)injury) may also play a role in these complaints, as it may lead to avoidance behaviour resulting in hypervigilance to bodily sensations, followed by disability, disuse and depression. However, in relation to arm, neck and shoulder complaints little is known about kinesiophobia and its associated variables.Therefore this study aimed to: describe the degree of kinesiophobia in patients with non-traumatic complaints of arm, neck and shoulder in general practice; to determine whether mean scores of kinesiophobia change over time in non-recovered patients; and to evaluate variables associated with kinesiophobia at baseline. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study set in general practice, consulters with a first or new episode of non-traumatic arm, neck or shoulder complaints (aged 18-64 years) entered the cohort. Baseline data were collected on kinesiophobia using the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, the 13-item adjusted version: TSK-AV, and on patient-, complaint-, and psychosocial variables using self-administered questionnaires. The mean TSK-AV score was calculated. In non-recovered patients the follow-up TSK-AV scores at 6 and 12 months were analyzed with the general linear mixed model. Variables associated with kinesiophobia at baseline were evaluated using multivariate linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The mean TSK-AV score at baseline was 24.8 [SD: 6.2]. Among non-recovered patients the mean TSK-AV score at baseline was 26.1 [SD: 6.6], which remained unchanged over 12- months follow-up period. The strongest associations with kinesiophobia were catastrophizing, disability, and comorbidity of musculoskeletal complaints. Additionally, having a shoulder complaint, low social support, high somatization and high distress contributed to the kinesiophobia score. CONCLUSION: The mean TSK-AV score in our population seems comparable to those in other populations in primary care.In patients who did not recover during the 12- month follow-up, the degree of kinesiophobia remained unchanged during this time period.The variables associated with kinesiophobia at baseline appear to be in line with the fear-avoidance model

Is the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) Also Valid and Responsive in Patients With Neck Complaints

Study Design. Prospective cohort study. Objective. To evaluate whether the DASH is not only a valid and responsive instrument to measure patients with shoulder, arm, and hand complaints, but also to evaluate patients with neck complaints. Summary of Background Data. The DASH has shown to be a valid and responsive questionnaire to evaluate disability in patients with shoulder, arm, and hand complaints. However, patients with shoulder, arm, or hand complaints frequently report neck complaints as well. Therefore, a valid and responsive questionnaire designed for the whole upper extremity, including the neck, would be very useful and practical in upper-extremity research. Methods. Six hundred seventy-nine patients visiting their general practitioner with a new episode of nontraumatic complaints of the neck and upper extremity were evaluated by use of questionnaires at baseline and at 6-months follow-up. Six (sub) groups were formulated according to the location of complaints, including a subgroup with complaints in the shoulder-arm-hand region only and a group with complaints of the neck only. Disability (DASH), general health [SF-12 (physical and mental component)], severity, and persistence of complaints were assessed. Construct validity, floor and ceiling effects, and responsiveness were studied. Results. Correlations between the DASH and the other measures within the 6 (sub) groups at baseline (construct validity), for the change scores at 6-months follow-up (responsiveness), and the responsiveness ratios were classified as acceptable. No floor and ceiling effects were found. Conclusion. The DASH performed well with regard to the a priori hypotheses. This study has shown acceptable validity and responsiveness of the DASH for use in patients with nontraumatic neck complaints in addition to shoulder, arm, and hand complaints. We would caution against using the DASH in patients with neck complaints only, since fewer of the hypotheses could be confirmed in this subgroup

Management in non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: differences between diagnostic groups

Arm, neck and/or shoulder complaints are common in western societies. In the Netherlands, general practice guidelines are issued on shoulder pain and epicondylitis only. Little is known about actual management of the total range of diagnoses. The objectives of the study are: to determine management in patients consulting the GP with a new episode of non-traumatic arm neck and shoulder complaints up to 6 months after the first consultation. To evaluate differences in management between patients with specific diagnoses versus non-specific diagnoses and between specific diagnostic groups. In a prospective cohort study in general practice. We recruited 682 eligible patients. Data on diagnosis, management, patient- and complaint-characteristics were collected. Co-occurrence of treatment options was presented in scaled rectangles. After 6 months, additional diagnostic tests had been performed in 18% of the patients, mainly radiographic examination (14%). Further, 49% had been referred for physiotherapy and 12% to the medical specialist. Patients with specific diagnoses were more frequently referred for specialist treatment, and patients with non-specific diagnoses for physiotherapy. Corticosteroid injections (17%) were mainly applied specific diagnoses (e.g. impingement syndrome, frozen shoulder, carpal tunnel and M. Quervain). Frequencies of prescribed medication (51%) did not differ between specific and non-specific diagnoses. In 19% of the patients no referral, prescribed analgesics or injection was applied. Braces (4%) were mainly prescribed in epicondylitis. Overall, management most frequently consisted of prescribed analgesics and referral for physiotherapy. Specific and non-specific diagnostic subgroups differed in the frequency corticosteroid injections were applied, and referrals to physiotherapy and to a medical specialist

Psychosocial factors predicted nonrecovery in both specific and nonspecific diagnoses at arm, neck, and shoulder

Objectives: To evaluate the differences in predictors of nonrecovery between patients with a specific diagnosis at arm, neck, and/or shoulder, vs. patients with a nonspecific diagnosis in general practice at 6 months after the first consultation. Study Design and Setting: New consulters with nontraumatic arm, neck, or shoulder complaints entered the cohort. Patient, complaint, and physical, psychosocial, and work characteristics were evaluated as possible predictors. Logistic regression analyses were conducted for the specific and nonspecific groups separately. Results: At 6 months, 38% (n = 298) of the specific-group members and 49% (n = 249) of the nonspecific-group members reported nonrecovery. Univariately, similar variables were related in both groups, although their strength sometimes differed. Multivariately, duration of complaints was predictive of nonrecovery in both groups. Other predictors in the specific group were as follows: more somatization, low social support, older age, high body mass index, and unemployment. In the nonspecific group, the predictors were as follows: musculoskeletal comorbidity, recurrent complaint, poor perceived general health, multiple-region complaints, and high level of kinesiophobia. Conclusion: At 6 months, nonrecovery was reported more frequently in the group of patients with a nonspecific diagnosis. The predictive value of psychosocial factors on nonrecovery is at least of equal importance in patients with a specific diagnosis compared with patients with a nonspecific diagnosis. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Disability Trajectories in Patients With. Complaints of Arm, Neck, and Shoulder (CANS) in Primary Care: Prospective Cohort Study

Background. Nontraumatic complaints of arm, neck, and shoulder (CANS) represent an important health issue, with a high prevalence in the general working age population and huge economic impact. Nevertheless, only few prospective cohort studies for the outcome of CANS are available. Objectives. The purpose of this study was to identify disability trajectories and associated prognostic factors during a 2-year follow-up of patients with a new episode of CANS in primary care. Design. This was a prospective cohort study. Methods. Data of 682 participants were collected through questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter. Disability was measured with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH). Latent class growth mixture (LCGM) modeling was used to identify clinically meaningful groups of patients who were similar in their disability trajectory during follow-up. Multivariate multinomial regression analysis was used to evaluate associations between sociodemographic, complaint-related, physical, and psychosocial variables and the identified disability trajectories. Results. Three disability trajectories were identified: fast recovery (67.6%), modest recovery (23.6%), and continuous high disability (8.8%). A high level of somatization was the most important baseline predictor of continuous high disability. Furthermore, poor general health, widespread complaints, and medium level of somatization were associated with this trajectory and >3 months complaint duration, musculoskeletal comorbidity, female sex, history of trauma, low educational level, low social support, and high complaint severity were associated with both continuous high disability and modest recovery. Age, kinesiophobia, and catastrophizing showed significant associations only with modest recovery. Limitations. Loss to follow-up ranged from 10% to 22% at. each follow-up measurement. Disabilities were assessed only with the DASH and not with physical tests. Misclassification by general practitioners regarding specific or nonspecific diagnostic category might have occurred. The decision for optimal LCGM model, resulting in the disability trajectories, remains arbitrary to some extent. Conclusions. Three trajectories described the course of disabilities due to CANS. Several prognostic indicators were identified that can easily be recognized in primary care. As some of these prognostic indicators may be amenable for change, their presence in the early stages of CANS may lead to more intensive or additional interventions (eg, psychological or multidisciplinary therapy). Further research focusing on the use of these prognostic indicators in treatment decisions is needed to further substantiate their predictive value