A break from pain! Interruption management in the context of pain

Activity interruptions, namely temporary suspensions of an ongoing task with the intention to resume it later, are common in pain. First, pain is a threat signal that urges us to interrupt ongoing activities in order to manage the pain and its cause. Second, activity interruptions are used in chronic pain management. However, activity interruptions by pain may carry costs for activity performance. These costs have recently started to be systematically investigated. We review the evidence on the consequences of activity interruptions by pain for the performance of the interrupted activity. Further, inspired by literature on interruptions from other research fields, we suggest ways to improve interruption management in the field of pain, and provide a future research agenda

Effects of activity interruptions by pain on pattern of activity performance - an experimental investigation

Background and aims: Suspending an ongoing activity with the intention to resume it again later is a natural response to pain. This response facilitates coping with the pain, but it may also have negative consequences for the resumption and performance of the activity. For example, people with pain problems are often forced to take a break from doing their household chores because of their pain. They might delay resuming their chore, eventually needing longer time to finish it. We investigated how activity interruptions by pain influence the pattern of subsequent activity performance. We expected that when an activity is interrupted by pain (compared to non-pain), people spend longer time away from the activity, need longer time to complete it, and are less motivated to perform it. Methods: Sixty healthy volunteers performed an ongoing task that required them to make joystick movements in different directions according to a specific rule. Occasionally, participants received either a painful electrocutaneous stimulus or a non-painful and non-aversive auditory stimulus (between-subjects) as an interruption cue. The interruption cue was followed by the temporary suspension of the ongoing task and the initiation of a different activity (interruption task). The latter required the categorization of cards and had a maximum duration, but participants could also stop it earlier by pressing a button. We measured time away from the (interrupted) ongoing task, total time to complete the ongoing task (including the interruptions) and self-reported motivation to perform both the ongoing as well as the interruption task. Results: Groups did not differ in the time away from the ongoing task, total time to complete the ongoing task, or self-reported motivation to perform the two tasks. Conclusions: Activity interruptions by pain did not impair the pattern of activity performance more than activity interruptions by non-pain. Potential explanations and suggestions for future research are discussed

Evaluation of work-related psychosocial factors and regional musculoskeletal pain: results from a EULAR Task Force

Objectives: to establish whether review articles provide consistent conclusions on associations between workplace psychosocial factors and musculoskeletal pain and, if differences exist, to explore whether this is related to the methods used.Methods: reviews, reported up to February 2007, that included consideration of workplace psychosocial factors and upper limb, back or knee pain were identified through searches of multiple databases. The specific work-related psychosocial factors considered were job demands, support, job autonomy and job satisfaction. The conclusions of each review on one or more of the psychosocial/musculoskeletal pain associations were extracted.Results: 15 review articles were identified that considered one or more of the regional pain syndromes included in the study. For back pain, the most consistent conclusions (four reviews positive out of six) were with high job demands and low job satisfaction. The studies of upper limb pain were exclusively related to shoulder and/or neck pain, and the most consistent positive conclusions were with high and low job demands (four reviews positive out of six and two reviews positive out of three, respectively). For knee pain, only a single review was identified. For individual reviews of back and upper limb pain, there were marked differences in the number of associations concluded to be positive between reviews.Conclusions: the reasons for reviews coming to different conclusions included that they were often evaluating different bodies of evidence (according to their search criteria, the year when the review was conducted, the role that quality assessment played in whether studies contributed to evidence, and the combination of risk factors addressed in individual studies), but more important was whether the review specified explicit criteria for making conclusions on strength of evidence. These conclusions emphasise the importance of developing standardised methods for conducting such evaluations of existing evidence and the importance of new longitudinal studies for clarifying the temporal relationship between psychosocial factors and musculoskeletal pain in the workplac