Differences in Swedish and Australian medical student attitudes and beliefs about chronic pain, its management, and the way it is taught

Background and aims: Medical students receive training in the management of chronic pain, but the training is often suboptimal. Considering that the basis for physician’s knowledge is their medical education, it is important to explore the attitudes and beliefs of medical students with respect both to chronic pain management and to their views on current pain education. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare Swedish and Australian medical student’s attitudes and beliefs about patients with chronic pain, and their perceptions regarding their chronic pain management education. Methods: An online survey was conducted with final year Australian and Swedish medical students from two different universities between December 2016 and February 2017. Attitudes and beliefs towards chronic pain patients were measured using the Health Care Providers’ Pain and Impairment Scale (HC-PAIRS). A thematic analysis was conducted on open end questions regarding their views on their education and important skills for chronic pain management. Results: A total of 57 Swedish and 26 Australian medical students completed the HC-PAIRS scale. The Swedish medical students showed statistically significantly lower total mean HC-PAIRS scores compared to Australian medical students (46 and 51, respectively). Australian students had statistically significantly higher scores than the Swedish students for two of four factors: functional expectations and need for cure, whereas no significant differences were seen for the factors social expectations or for projected cognition. From the open end questions it was evident that final year medical students are knowledgeable about key chronic pain items described in clinical guidelines. However, both cohorts described their chronic pain training as poor and in need of improvement in several areas such as more focus on the biopsychosocial model, working in multidisciplinary teams, seeing chronic pain patients and pharmacological training. Conclusions: Attitudes and beliefs are formed during medical education, and our study exploring attitudes of medical students towards chronic pain and how it is taught have provided valuable information. Our survey provided detailed and cohesive suggestions for education improvement that also are in line with current clinical guidelines. This study indicates that the Swedish final year students have a more positive attitude towards chronic pain patients compared to their Australian counterparts. The majority of students in both cohorts perceived chronic pain management education in need of improvement. Implications: This study highlights several areas of interest that warrant further investigation, for example, the impact of a changed medical curriculum in alignment with these clinical guidelines requested by students in this survey, and correspondingly if their attitudes towards chronic pain patients can be improved through education. Further, we conclude that it would be valuable to align the implementation of the HC-PAIRS instrument in order to achieve comparable results between future studies

Influences of Sex, Education, and Country of Birth on Clinical Presentations and Overall Outcomes of Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation in Chronic Pain Patients: A Cohort Study from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP)

This study investigates the effects of sex, education, and country of birth on clinical presentations and outcomes of interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation programs (IMMRPs). A multivariate improvement score (MIS) and two retrospective estimations of changes in pain and ability to handle life situations were used as the three overall outcomes of IMMRPs. The study population consisted of chronic pain patients within specialist care in the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP) between 2008 and 2016 at baseline (n = 39,916), and for the subset participating in IMMRPs (n = 14,666). A cluster analysis based on sex, education, and country of origin revealed significant differences in the following aspects: best baseline clinical situation was for European women with university educations and the worst baseline clinical situation was for all patients born outside Europe of both sexes and different educations (i.e., moderate-large effect sizes). In addition, European women with university educations also had the most favorable overall outcomes in response to IMMRPs (small effect sizes). These results raise important questions concerning fairness and equality and need to be considered when optimizing assessments and content and delivery of IMMRPs for patients with chronic pain.Funding Agencies|Swedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council [2018-02470]; County Council of Ostergotland (Research-ALF) [LIO-700931]</p

Healthcare professional experiences with patients who participate in multimodal pain rehabilitation in primary care - a qualitative study

Purpose: Exploring healthcare professional experiences of Multimodal rehabilitation (MMR) in primary care. Methods: Fourteen healthcare professionals (11 women, 3 men) were individually interviewed about their work with MMR in primary care. Interviews covered experiences of assessing patients and work with patients in the programme. Transcribed interviews were analysed by qualitative content analysis. Results: The analysis resulted in four categories: select patients for success; a multilevel challenge; ethical dilemmas and considering what is a good result. MMR work was experienced as useful and efficient, but also challenging because of patient complexity. Preconceptions about who is a suitable patient for MMR influenced the selection of patients (e.g. gender, different culture). Interviewees were conflicted about not to being able to offer MMR to patients who were not going to return to work. They thought that there were more factors to evaluate MMR than by the proportion that return to work. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals perceive MMR as a helpful method for treating chronic pain patients. At the same time, they thought that only including patients who would return to work conflicted with their ethical views on equal healthcare for all patients. Preconceptions can influence selection for, and work with, MMR.Funding Agencies|Swedish Social Insurance Agency, the research programme REHSAM</p

LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF MULTIMODAL REHABILITATION IN PRIMARY CARE FOR PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PAIN

Objectives: To investigate the outcomes one year after multimodal rehabilitation programmes in primary care for patients with chronic pain, both as a whole and for men and women separately. A second aim was to identify predictive factors for not being on sickness absence at follow-up after one year. Methods: A prospective longitudinal cohort study of 234 patients, 34 men and 200 women, age range 18-65 years, who participated in multimodal rehabilitation programmes in primary care in 2 Swedish county councils. Pain, physical and emotional functioning, coping, health-related quality of life, work-related factors, sickness absence (sick leave, sickness compensation/disability pension) were evaluated prior to and one year after multimodal rehabilitation programmes. Results: Patients showed significant improvements at 1-year follow-up for all measures (all p &amp;lt;= 0.004) except satisfaction with vocation (p= 0.060). The proportion of patients on sick leave decreased significantly at follow-up (p =0.027), while there was no significant difference regarding the proportion of patients on sickness compensation/disability pension (p 0.087). Higher self-rated work ability was associated with not being on sickness absence at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-1.06, p= 0.005). Conclusion: This study indicates that multimodal rehabilitation programmes in primary care could be beneficial for patients with chronic pain, since the outcomes at 1-year follow-up for pain, physical and emotional functioning, coping, and health-related quality of life were positive. However, the effect sizes were small and thus further development of multimodal rehabilitation programmes is warranted in order to improve the outcomes.Funding Agencies|Swedish Social Insurance Agency; research programme REHSAM; AFA Insurance; Forsknings-ALF (county council of Vasterbotten); Forsknings-ALF (county council of Ostergotland)</p

Behavioural problems in the first year after Severe traumatic brain injury : a prospective multicentre study

Objective: To investigate the occurrence of behavioural problems in patients with severe traumatic brain injury during the first year after injury and potential associations with outcome. An additional post hoc objective was to analyse the frequency of behaviours with need for intervention from staff. Design and setting: In a prospective population based cohort study 114 patients with severe traumatic brain injury were assessed at three weeks, three months and one year after injury. Main measures: Assessments included clinical examination and standardised instruments. Agitation was assessed with the Agitated Behaviour Scale, the course of recovery by the Rancho Los Amigo Scale and outcome by Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended. Results: Agitation were most common at 3 weeks post injury and 28% (n=68) of the patients showed at least one agitated behaviour requiring intervention from staff. Presence of significant agitation at 3 weeks after injury was not associated with poor outcome. At 3 months agitation was present in 11% (n=90) and apathy in 26 out of 81 assessed patients. At 3 months agitation and apathy were associated with poor outcome at one year. Conclusions: Most agitated behaviours in the early phase are transient and are not associated with poor outcome. Agitation and apathy are uncommon at three months but when present are associated with poor outcome at one year after injury. In the early phase after a severe traumatic brain injury agitated behaviour in need of interventions from staff occur in a substantial proportion of patients

Subacute complications during recovery from severe traumatic brain injury : frequency and associations with outcome

Background: Medical complications after severe traumatic brain injury (S-TBI) may delay or prevent transfer to rehabilitation units and impact on long-term outcome. Objective: Mapping of medical complications in the subacute period after S-TBI and the impact of these complications on 1-year outcome to inform healthcare planning and discussion of prognosis with relatives. Setting: Prospective multicentre observational study. Recruitment from 6 neurosurgical centres in Sweden and Iceland. Participants and assessments: Patients aged 18-65 years with S-TBI and acute Glasgow Coma Scale 3-8, who were admitted to neurointensive care. Assessment of medical complications 3 weeks and 3 months after injury. Follow-up to 1 year. 114 patients recruited with follow-up at 1 year as follows: 100 assessed, 7 dead and 7 dropped out. Outcome measure: Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended. Results: 68 patients had &gt;= 1 complication 3 weeks after injury. 3 weeks after injury, factors associated with unfavourable outcome at 1 year were: tracheostomy, assisted ventilation, on-going infection, epilepsy and nutrition via nasogastric tube or percutaneous endoscopic gastroscopy (PEG) tube (univariate logistic regression analyses). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that tracheostomy and epilepsy retained significance even after incorporating acute injury severity into the model. 3 months after injury, factors associated with unfavourable outcome were tracheostomy and heterotopic ossification (Fisher's test), infection, hydrocephalus, autonomic instability, PEG feeding and weight loss (univariate logistic regression). PEG feeding and weight loss at 3 months were retained in a multivariate model. Conclusions: Subacute complications occurred in two-thirds of patients. Presence of a tracheostomy or epilepsy at 3 weeks, and of PEG feeding and weight loss at 3 months, had robust associations with unfavourable outcome that were incompletely explained by acute injury severity

Who benefits from multimodal rehabilitation - an exploration of pain, psychological distress, and life impacts in over 35,000 chronic pain patients identified in the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation

Background: Chronic pain patients frequently suffer from psychological symptoms. There is no consensus concerning the prevalence of severe anxiety and depressive symptoms and the strength of the associations between pain intensity and psychological distress. Although an important aspect of the clinical picture is understanding how the pain condition impacts life, little is known about the relative importance of pain and psychological symptoms for individuals life impact. The aims of this study were to identify subgroups of pain patients; to analyze if pain, psychological distress, and life impact variables influence subgrouping; and to investigate how patients in the subgroups benefit from treatments. Methods: Background variables, pain aspects (intensity/severity and spreading), psychological distress (depressive and anxiety symptoms), and two life impact variables (pain interference and perceived life control) were obtained from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation for chronic pain patients and analyzed mainly using advanced multivariate methods. Results: Based on amp;gt;35,000 patients, 35%-40% had severe anxiety or depressive symptoms. Severe psychological distress was associated with being born outside Europe (21%-24% vs 6%-8% in the category without psychological distress) and low education level (20.7%-20.8% vs 26%-27% in the category without psychological distress). Dose relationships existed between the two psychological distress variables and pain aspects, but the explained variances were generally low. Pain intensity/severity and the two psychological distress variables were significantly associated (R-2 =0.40-0.48; Pamp;gt;0.001) with the two life impact variables (pain interference and life control). Two subgroups of patients were identified at baseline (subgroup 1: n=15,901 16,119; subgroup 2: n=20,690-20,981) and the subgroup with the worst situation regarding all variables participated less in an MMRP (51% vs 58%, Pamp;lt;0.001) but showed the largest improvements in outcomes. Conclusion: The results emphasize the need to assess both pain and psychological distress and not take for granted that pain involves high psychological stress in the individual case. Not all patients benefit from MMRP. A better matching between common clinical pictures and the content of MMRPs may help improve results. We only partly found support for treatment resistance in patients with psychological distress burden.Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council; County Council of Ostergotland (Research-ALF); AFA Insurance</p