The back pain beliefs of health care providers: Are we fear-avoidant?

The purpose of this study was to survey the level of fear-avoidance beliefs for practicing general practitioners and physical therapists and to relate this to self-reported practice behaviors for patients with back pain. To this end, 60 general practitioners and 71 physical therapists were recruited. These participants completed a questionnaire including 11 items slightly revised from instruments designed to assess fear-avoidance beliefs in patients, and four items about treatment practices. The results indicated that these health care practitioners on the average generally held beliefs that are consistent with the current evidence, but there were also indications that some practitioners held beliefs reflecting fear-avoidance. More than two-thirds reported that they would advise a patient to avoid painful movements, more than one-third believed a reduction in pain is a prerequisite for return-to-work, while more than 25% reported that they believe sick leave is a good treatment for back pain. These beliefs were found to be related to reported practice behavior. Those with high levels of fear-avoidance beliefs were compared to those with low levels. Those with high levels of fear-avoidance belief had an increased risk for believing sick leave to be a good treatment (RR = 2.0; 90%CI = 1.02-3.92), not providing good information about activities (RR = 1.7; 90%CI = 1.19-2.45), and being uncertain about identifying patients at risk for developing persistent pain problems (RR = 1.5; 90%CI = 1.00-2.27). It is concluded that some practitioners hold beliefs reflecting fear-avoidance and that these beliefs may influence treatment practice

Assessment of health state in patients with tinnitus: a comparison of the EQ-5D and HUI mark III

Objectives: Expressing the outcomes of treatment in quality-adjusted life years is increasingly important as a tool to aid decision makers concerning the allocation of scarce resources within the health care sector. A quality-adjusted life year is a measure of life expectancy that is weighted by health-related quality of life. These weights are referred to as utility scores and are usually measured by multiattribute utility measures. Several studies found that different utility measures provide different estimates of the same person's level of utility. The aim of this study was to investigate which of two widely used utility measures, the EQ-5D and the HUI mark III, is preferred in a tinnitus population. Methods: Baseline and follow-up data on EQ-5D and HUI mark III of 429 patients of a randomized controlled clinical trial, investigating cost-effectiveness of usual care versus specialized care of tinnitus, were included. Agreement, discriminative power, and responsiveness of the health state description and the utility scores were examined. Results: Corresponding dimensions of the EQ-5D and HUI mark III showed large correlations; although ceiling effects were more frequently observed in the EQ-5D. Mean utility scores for EQ-5D (0.77; SD 0.22) and HUI mark III (0.64; SD 0.28) were significantly different (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p <0.001), and agreement was low to moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.53). Both health state description and utility scores of both measures discriminated between different severity groups. These groups were based on baseline scores of the Tinnitus Questionnaire. The HUI mark III had a higher ability than the EQ-5D to detect improved patients from randomly selected pairs of improved and unimproved patients. Conclusion: This study shows that different utility measures lead to different health state descriptions and utility scores among tinnitus patients. However, both measures are capable of discriminating between clinically different groups. The HUI mark III is more responsive than the EQ-5D, and therefore preferred in a tinnitus population

Is a behavioural graded activity program more effective than manual therapy in patients with subacute neck pain? Results of a randomized clinical trial

Spine (Phila Pa 1976)status: publishe

Fear of movement and (re)injury in chronic musculoskeletal pain: evidence for an invariant two-factor model of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia across pain diagnoses and Dutch, Swedish and Canadian samples

The aims of the current study were twofold. First, the factor structure, reliability (i.e., internal consistency), and validity (i.e., concurrent criterion validity) of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), a measure of fear of movement and (re)injury, were investigated in a Dutch sample of patients with work-related upper extremity disorders (study 1). More specifically, examination of the factor structure involved a test of three competitive models: the one-factor model of all 17 TSK items, a one-factor model of the TSK (Woby SR, Roach NK, Urmston M, Watson P. Psychometric properties of the TSK- 11: a shortened version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Pain 2005;117:137-44.), and a two-factor model of the TSK-11. Second, invariance of the aforementioned TSK models was examined in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions (i.e., work-related upper extremity disorders, chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis) from The Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada was assessed (study 2). Results from study 1 showed that the two-factor model of the TSK-11 consisting of 'somatic focus' (TSK-SF) and 'activity avoidance' (TSK-AA) had the best fit. The TSK factors showed reasonable internal consistency, and were modestly but significantly related to disability, supporting the concurrent criterion validity of the TSK scales. Results from study 2 showed that the two-factor model of the TSK- I I was invariant across pain diagnoses and Dutch, Swedish, and Canadian samples. Altogether, we consider the TSK-11 and its two subscales a psychometrically sound instrument of fear of movement and (re)injury and recommend to use this measure in future research as well as in clinical settings. (C) 2007 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserve

Expose or protect? A randomized controlled trial of exposure in vivo vs pain-contingent treatment as usual in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1

Complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS-I) highly affects patients' ability to perform daily life activities. Pain-related fear might be a key target to reduce disability in chronic pain. Current treatments aiming at reducing pain show little improvements on pain and disability, whereas novel exposure-based treatments targeting pain-related fears have shown to be promising. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 46) comparing exposure in vivo (EXP) with pain-contingent treatment as usual (TAU), for CRPS-I patients with at least moderate levels of pain-related fear. Primary outcome is self-reported disability, for upper and lower extremity, respectively. Secondary outcomes are self-reported pain-intensity, pain-catastrophizing, perceived harmfulness of physical activity, and health-related quality of life. Pretreatment to posttreatment and pretreatment to 6-month follow-up change scores were tested using randomization-based inference. EXP was superior to TAU in reducing upper extremity disability from pretreatment to posttreatment (between-group difference, 1.082; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.563-1.601; P < 0.001) and from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up (1.303; 95% CI, 0.917-1.690; P < 0.001). EXP was superior in reducing lower extremity disability from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up (3.624; 95% CI, 0.467-6.781; P = 0.02), but not from pretreatment to posttreatment (3.055; 95% CI, -0.018 to 6.128; P = 0.054). All secondary outcomes significantly favored EXP pretreatment to posttreatment, as well as pretreatment to 6-month follow-up. Exposure to daily activities shows to be more effective than a protective pain-contingent TAU in reducing self-reported disability in daily life of CRPS-I patients with at least moderate levels of pain-related fear