Psychosocial predictors of health-related quality of life and health service utilisation in people with chronic low back pain

Psychological and social factors have been shown, separately, to predict outcome in individuals with chronic low back pain. Few previous studies, however, have integrated both psychological and social factors, using prospective study of clinic populations of low back pain patients, to identify which are the most important targets for treatment. One hundred and eight patients with chronic low back pain, newly referred to an orthopaedic outpatient clinic, completed assessments of demographic characteristics, details of back pain, measures of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), fearful beliefs about pain (Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), social stresses (Life Events and Difficulties Schedule) and physical aspects of health‐related quality of life [SF‐36 Physical Component summary Score scale (PCS)]. Six months later subjects completed the SF‐36 PCS and the number of healthcare contacts during follow‐up was recorded. Independent predictors of SF‐36 PCS at 6‐month follow‐up were duration of pain [(standardised regression coefficient (β) = −0.18, p = 0.04), HADS score (β) = −0.27, p = 0.003] and back pain related social difficulties (β = −0.42, p < 0.0005). Number of healthcare contacts over the 6 months ranged from 1 to 29, and was independently predicted by perceived cause of pain [Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) = 1.46, p = 0.03], Fear Avoidance Beliefs about work (IRR = 1.02, p = 0.009) and back pain related social difficulties (IRR = 1.16, p = 0.03). To conclude, anxiety, depression, fear avoidance beliefs relating to work and back pain related stresses predict impairment in subsequent physical health‐related quality of life and number of healthcare contacts. Interventions targeting these psychosocial variables in clinic patients may lead to improved quality of life and healthcare costs

DOES EARLY INTERVENTION FOR PSYCHOSIS WORK? An analysis of Outcomes of Early Intervention in Psychosis based on the Critical Period Hypothesis, Measured by Number of Admissions and Bed Days Used over a period of Six Years, the first three in an Early Intervention Service, The second Three in a Community Mental Health Team

Background: Early Intervention in Psychosis (EI) was introduced into the British NHS as a result of the NHS Plan, about eleven years ago. The intention was to provide thebest possible care or patients with a first episode of psychosis.Recently however, long term studies over five years have suggested that early gains may be lost. Methods and Aims: We wished to establish whether our own group of patients who had received Early Intervention continued over six years to have better outcomes than patients treated in Community Mental Health Teams. To do this we analysed statistically the data on the readmissions and bed days used by our patients over the first six years of illness. Results: We found that patients, both in the whole two groups and in different sub-groups appeared to demonstrate a number of advantages,not always statistically significant, in favour of the EI treated team. Discussion: In many cases, the small size of the samples may have impeded us observing statistically significant differences, however, in general, it appeared that there were a number of advantages in favour of the EI treated team. Conclusion: Our study, though small, does appear to support the view that Early Intervention Services do improve outcomes and that some of the improvement may endure after the patient leaves EI services. Much larger studies ae however required

The associated features of multiple somatic symptom complexes

We are grateful to the participants in the project and to the General Practitioners and their teams who facilitated it. The study would have been impossible without the work of our research assistants: Judy Jackson, Alison Littlewood and Ian Davies. The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. The UK MRC had no role in study design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPostprin

Does anxiety predict the use of urgent care by people with long term conditions? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Objective: The role of anxiety in the use of urgent care in people with long term conditions is not fully understood. A systematic review was conducted with meta-analysis to examine the relationship between anxiety and future use of urgent healthcare among individuals with one of four long term conditions: diabetes; coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. Methods: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCINFO, CINAHL, the British Nursing Library and the Cochrane Library were conducted These searches were supplemented by hand-searching bibliographies, citation tracing eligible studies and asking experts within the field about relevant studies. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they: a) used a standardised measure of anxiety, b) used prospective cohort design, c) included adult patients diagnosed with coronary heart disease (CHD), asthma, diabetes or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), d) assessed urgent healthcare use prospectively. Data regarding participants, methodology, and association between anxiety and urgent care use was extracted from studies eligible for inclusion. Odds ratios were calculated for each study and pooled using random effects models. Results: 8 independent studies were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis, with a total of 28,823 individual patients. Pooled effects indicate that anxiety is not associated with an increase in the use of urgent care (OR. =. 1.078, p. =. 0.476), regardless of the type of service, or type of medical condition. Conclusions: Anxiety is not associated with increased use of urgent care. This finding is in contrast to similar studies which have investigated the role of depression as a risk factor for use of urgent care