Diagnostic uncertainty and recall bias in chronic low back pain

Patients' beliefs about the origin of their pain and their cognitive processing of pain-related information have both been shown to be associated with poorer prognosis in low back pain (LBP), but the relationship between specific beliefs and specific cognitive processes is not known. The aim of this study was to study the relationship between diagnostic uncertainty and recall bias in two groups of chronic LBP patients, those who were certain about their diagnosis, and those who believed that their pain was due to an undiagnosed problem. Patients (N=68) endorsed and subsequently recalled pain, illness, depression and neutral stimuli. They also provided measures of pain, diagnostic status, mood and disability. Both groups exhibited a recall bias for pain stimuli, but only the group with diagnostic uncertainty additionally displayed a recall bias for illness-related stimuli. This bias remained after controlling for depression and disability. Sensitivity analyses using grouping by diagnosis/explanation received supported these findings. Higher levels of depression and disability were found in the group with diagnostic uncertainty, but levels of pain intensity did not differ between the groups. Although the methodology does not provide information on causality, the results provide evidence for a relationship between diagnostic uncertainty and recall bias for negative health-related stimuli in chronic LBP patients

Pain-related Guilt in Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVES: Identifying mechanisms that mediate recovery is imperative to improve outcomes in low back pain (LBP). Qualitative studies suggest that guilt may be such a mechanism, but research on this concept is scarce, and reliable instruments to measure pain-related guilt are not available.METHODS: We addressed this gap by developing and testing a Pain-related Guilt Scale (PGS) for people with LBP. Two samples of participants with LBP completed the scale and provided data on rates of depression, anxiety, pain intensity, and disability.RESULTS: Three factors were identified using exploratory factor analysis (n=137): "Social guilt," (4 items) relating to letting down family and friends; "Managing condition/pain guilt," (5 items) relating to failing to overcome and control pain; and "Verification of pain guilt," (3 items) relating to the absence of objective evidence and diagnosis. This factor structure was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis (n=288), demonstrating an adequate to good fit with the data (AGFI=0.913, RMSEA=0.061). The PGS subscales positively correlated with depression, anxiety, pain intensity, and disability. After controlling for depression and anxiety the majority of relationships between the PGS subscales and disability and pain intensity remained significant, suggesting that guilt shared unique variance with disability and pain intensity independent of depression and anxiety. High levels of guilt were reported by over 40% of participants.DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that pain-related guilt is common and is associated with clinical outcomes. Prospective research is needed to examine the role of guilt as a predictor, moderator, and mediator of patients' outcomes

Chronic pain patients' perception of their future:a verbal fluency task

Depression is a common feature of chronic pain, but the content of depressed cognitions in groups with chronic pain may be qualitatively different from other depressed groups. Future thinking has been extensively studied in depressed population, however, to our knowledge this is the first study to investigate future thinking, using a verbal fluency task, in chronic pain. This study investigated the content of cognitions about the future, which are postulated to be a key mechanism in the development of clinical depression, but have not been studies in groups with chronic pain. The present study used the Future Thinking Task (FTT) to investigate general future thinking and health-related future thinking in 4 groups of participants: those with pain and concurrent depression, those with pain without depression, those with depression without pain, and healthy control participants. 172 participants generated positive and negative future events, and rated the valence and likelihood of these events. Responses were coded for health-related content by two independent raters. Participants with depression (with and without pain) produced more negative and less positive future events than control participants. Participants with pain (depressed and non-depressed) produced more positive health-related future events than control participants. Participants with depression and pain produced more negative health-related future events than the non-depressed pain group. The findings suggest that participants with pain and depression exhibit a cognitive bias specific to negative aspects of health-related future thinking. This focus facilitates understanding of the relationship between depression and pain processing. The implications for therapeutic interventions are discussed

Discharged and dismissed:A qualitative study with back pain patients discharged without treatment from orthopaedic consultations

BackgroundConsultation-based reassurance for patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care has been shown to be associated with patients' outcomes. Little is known about the role of reassurance in people with LBP consulting with orthopaedic spinal care teams. Reassurance may be important, especially in cases where surgery is not indicated and patients are discharged without treatment.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 patients with chronic disabling musculoskeletal LBP who had recently consulted with spinal orthopaedic care teams. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed.ResultsMost patients reported feeling dismissed and discouraged. Patients perceived that they needed specific behaviours from practitioners in order to feel sufficiently reassured to commit to self-management. These behaviours group into four domains: “Knowing my whole story” (evidence that practitioners read the case notes; were familiar with the patients' previous health care history; carried out tests and a physical examination and gathered information about the patients' lifestyle), “Seeing the right person” (showing empathy; listening; building rapport and demonstrating that they are qualified and experienced), “Nothing to worry about” (reducing generic reassuring statements but increasing validating statements recognizing suffering) and “Getting to grips with my problem” (providing explanations and a clear management plan). In the absence of these behaviours, patients rejected advice to self-manage, reported distress, anger and intention to re-consult.ConclusionEffective communication with patients attending spinal orthopaedic care settings is important, especially when no active treatment is being offered.SignificanceThis study describes narratives from patients discharged without surgery following consultations with orthopaedic professionals for persistent and debilitating lower back pain. Findings suggest that these interactions are distressful to patients, and that patients require comprehensive and specific reassurance to promote self-management. The findings contribute a unique insight into the special needs of people with complex pain problems and provide guidance to improve consultation-based reassurance in orthopaedic spinal care settings.<br/

Sit-to-Stand Movement Recognition Using Kinect

This paper examines the application of machine-learning techniques to human movement data in order to recognise and compare movements made by different people. Data from an experimental set-up using a sit-to-stand movement are first collected using the Microsoft Kinect input sensor, then normalized and subsequently compared using the assigned labels for correct and incorrect movements. We show that attributes can be extracted from the time series produced by the Kinect sensor using a dynamic time-warping technique. The extracted attributes are then fed to a random forest algorithm, to recognise anomalous behaviour in time series of joint measurements over the whole movement. For comparison, the k-Nearest Neighbours algorithm is also used on the same attributes with good results. Both methods’ results are compared using Multi-Dimensional Scaling for clustering visualisation

Testing a model of consultation-based reassurance and back pain outcomes with psychological risk as a moderator: A prospective cohort study.

Objectives: Reassurance is an essential part of treatment for low back pain (LBP), but evidence on effective methods to deliver reassurance remains scarce. The interaction between consultation-based reassurance and patients’ psychological risk is unknown. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between consultation-based reassurance and clinical outcomes at follow-up, in people with and without psychological risk. Methods: We tested the associations between specific reassurance components (data gathering, relationship building, generic reassurance, and cognitive reassurance), patients’ psychological risk (the presence of depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, or fear-avoidance), and postconsultation outcomes including, satisfaction and enablement, disability, pain, and mood at 3-month follow-up. Results: Adjusted linear regression models using data from patients who had recently consulted for LBP in primary care (n=142 in 43 practices) indicated that all reassurance components were strongly associated with increased satisfaction, whereas generic reassurance was significantly associated with postconsultation enablement. Generic reassurance was also associated with lower pain at 3 months, whereas cognitive reassurance was associated with increased pain. A significant interaction was observed between generic reassurance and psychological risk for depression at 3 months: high rates of generic reassurance were associated with lower depression in low-risk patients, but with higher rates of depression for high-risk groups. Discussion: The findings support the hypothesis that different components of reassurance are associated with specific outcomes, and that psychological risk moderates this relationship for depression. Clinicians reassuring behaviors might therefore have the potential to improve outcomes in people with LBP, especially for patients with higher psychological risk profiles

Diagnostic uncertainty, guilt, mood, and disability in back pain

Objective: In the majority of patients a definitive cause for low back pain (LBP) cannot be established, and many patients report feeling uncertain about their diagnosis, accompanied by guilt. The relationship between diagnostic uncertainty, guilt, mood, and disability is currently unknown. This study tested 3 theoretical models to explore possible pathways between these factors. In Model 1, diagnostic uncertainty was hypothesized to correlate with pain-related guilt, which in turn would positively correlate with depression, anxiety and disability. Two alternative models were tested: (a) a path from depression and anxiety to guilt, from guilt to diagnostic uncertainty, and finally to disability; (b) a model in which depression and anxiety, and independently, diagnostic uncertainty, were associated with guilt, which in turn was associated with disability. Method: Structural equation modeling was employed on data from 413 participants with chronic LBP. Results: All 3 models showed a reasonable-to-good fit with the data, with the 2 alternative models providing marginally better fit indices. Guilt, and especially social guilt, was associated with disability in all 3 models. Diagnostic uncertainty was associated with guilt, but only moderately. Low mood was also associated with guilt. Conclusions: Two newly defined factors, pain related guilt and diagnostic uncertainty, appear to be linked to disability and mood in people with LBP. The causal path of these links cannot be established in this cross sectional study. However, pain-related guilt especially appears to be important, and future research should examine whether interventions directly targeting guilt improve outcomes

Pain management for chronic musculoskeletal conditions : the development of an evidence-based and theory-informed pain self-management course

Objective: To devise and test a self-management course for chronic pain patients based on evidence and underpinned by theory using the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions. Design: We used a mixed method approach. We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of components and characteristics of pain management courses. We then interviewed chronic pain patients who had attended pain and self-management courses. Behavioural change theories were mapped onto our findings and used to design the intervention. We then conducted a feasibility study to test the intervention. Setting: Primary care in the inner city of London, UK. Participants: Adults (18 years or older) with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Outcomes: Related disability, quality of life, coping, depression, anxiety, social integration and healthcare resource use. Results: The systematic reviews indicated that group-based courses with joint lay and healthcare professional leadership and that included a psychological component of short duration (<8 weeks) showed considerable promise. The qualitative research indicated that participants liked relaxation, valued social interaction and course location, and that timing and good tutoring were important determinants of attendance. We used behavioural change theories (social learning theory and cognitive behaviour approaches (CBA)) to inform course content. The course addressed: understanding and accepting pain, mood and pain, unhelpful thoughts and behaviour, problem solving, goal setting, action planning, movement, relaxation and social integration/reactivation. Attendance was 85%; we modified the recruitment of patients, the course and the training of facilitators as a result of testing. Conclusions: The MRC guidelines were helpful in developing this intervention. It was possible to train both lay and non-psychologists to facilitate the courses and deliver CBA. The course was feasible and well received