A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.
TL;DR: The development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure selfrated disability due to back pain is described, which is short, simple, sensitive, and reliable.
Abstract: One of the problems in mounting a trial of treatment of back pain is the lack of suitable outcome measures. This paper describes the development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure selfrated disability due to back pain. The questionnaire is short, simple, sensitive, and reliable. I
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication, and those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.
Abstract: Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.
Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.
Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).
Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:
A) 'choice made' attributes;
B) 'decision-making process' attributes.
Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.
Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.
Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).
A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:
Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).
B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:
Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:
a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);
b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and
c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).
Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.
C) Secondary outcomes
Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.
The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.
Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.
New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.
5,042 citations
TL;DR: The ODI remains a valid and vigorous measure and has been a worthwhile outcome measure, and the process of using the ODI is reviewed and should be the subject of further research.
Abstract: Study design The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) has become one of the principal condition-specific outcome measures used in the management of spinal disorders. This review is based on publications using the ODI identified from the authors' personal databases, the Science Citation Index, and hand searches of Spine and current textbooks of spinal disorders. Objectives To review the versions of this instrument, document methods by which it has been validated, collate data from scores found in normal and back pain populations, provide curves for power calculations in studies using the ODI, and maintain the ODI as a gold standard outcome measure. Summary of background data It has now been 20 years since its original publication. More than 200 citations exist in the Science Citation Index. The authors have a large correspondence file relating to the ODI, that is cited in most of the large textbooks related to spinal disorders. Methods All the published versions of the questionnaire were identified. A systematic review of this literature was made. The various reports of validation were collated and related to a version. Results Four versions of the ODI are available in English and nine in other languages. Some published versions contain misprints, and many omit the scoring system. At least 114 studies contain usable data. These data provide both validation and standards for other users and indicate the power of the instrument for detecting change in sample populations. Conclusions The ODI remains a valid and vigorous measure and has been a worthwhile outcome measure. The process of using the ODI is reviewed and should be the subject of further research. The receiver operating characteristics should be explored in a population with higher self-report disabilities. The behavior of the instrument is incompletely understood, particularly in sensitivity to real change.
4,482 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors reviewed the existing evidence for the mediating role of pain-related fear, and its immediate and long-term consequences in the initiation and maintenance of chronic pain disability.
Abstract: In an attempt to explain how and why some individuals with musculoskeletal pain develop a chronic pain syndrome, Lethem et al. (Lethem J, Slade PD, Troup JDG, Bentley G. Outline of fear-avoidance model of exaggerated pain perceptions. Behav Res Ther 1983; 21: 401-408).ntroduced a so-called 'fear-avoidance' model. The central concept of their model is fear of pain. 'Confrontation' and 'avoidance' are postulated as the two extreme responses to this fear, of which the former leads to the reduction of fear over time. The latter, however, leads to the maintenance or exacerbation of fear, possibly generating a phobic state. In the last decade, an increasing number of investigations have corroborated and refined the fear-avoidance model. The aim of this paper is to review the existing evidence for the mediating role of pain-related fear, and its immediate and long-term consequences in the initiation and maintenance of chronic pain disability. We first highlight possible precursors of pain-related fear including the role negative appraisal of internal and external stimuli, negative affectivity and anxiety sensitivity may play. Subsequently, a number of fear-related processes will be discussed including escape and avoidance behaviors resulting in poor behavioral performance, hypervigilance to internal and external illness information, muscular reactivity, and physical disuse in terms of deconditioning and guarded movement. We also review the available assessment methods for the quantification of pain-related fear and avoidance. Finally, we discuss the implications of the recent findings for the prevention and treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Although there are still a number of unresolved issues which merit future research attention, pain-related fear and avoidance appear to be an essential feature of the development of a chronic problem for a substantial number of patients with musculoskeletal pain.
3,695 citations
University of Washington1, University of Rochester2, AstraZeneca3, University of Queensland4, Pfizer5, Tufts University6, University of Pennsylvania7, Endo International plc8, University Health Network9, Harvard University10, Purdue Pharma11, Novartis12, National Institutes of Health13, Dalhousie University14, GlaxoSmithKline15, Food and Drug Administration16, Élan17, Abbott Laboratories18, University of California, San Diego19, United States Department of Veterans Affairs20
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain, and develop a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of d
Abstract: Objective. To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of d
3,476 citations
TL;DR: A Guttman scale analysis showed that pain intensity and disability measures formed a reliable hierarchical scale and may be useful when a brief ordinal measure of global pain severity is required.
Abstract: This research develops and evaluates a simple method of grading the severity of chronic pain for use in general population surveys and studies of primary care pain patients Measures of pain intensity, disability, persistence and recency of onset were tested for their ability to grade chronic pain severity in a longitudinal study of primary care back pain (n = 1213), headache (n = 779) and temporomandibular disorder pain (n = 397) patients A Guttman scale analysis showed that pain intensity and disability measures formed a reliable hierarchical scale Pain intensity measures appeared to scale the lower range of global severity while disability measures appeared to scale the upper range of global severity Recency of onset and days in pain in the prior 6 months did not scale with pain intensity or disability Using simple scoring rules, pain severity was graded into 4 hierarchical classes: Grade I, low disability--low intensity; Grade II, low disability--high intensity; Grade III, high disability--moderately limiting; and Grade IV, high disability--severely limiting For each pain site, Chronic Pain Grade measured at baseline showed a highly statistically significant and monotonically increasing relationship with unemployment rate, pain-related functional limitations, depression, fair to poor self-rated health, frequent use of opioid analgesics, and frequent pain-related doctor visits both at baseline and at 1-year follow-up Days in Pain was related to these variables, but not as strongly as Chronic Pain Grade Recent onset cases (first onset within the prior 3 months) did not show differences in psychological and behavioral dysfunction when compared to persons with less recent onset Using longitudinal data from a population-based study (n = 803), Chronic Pain Grade at baseline predicted the presence of pain in the prior 2 weeks Chronic Pain Grade and pain-related functional limitations at 3-year follow-up Grading chronic pain as a function of pain intensity and pain-related disability may be useful when a brief ordinal measure of global pain severity is required Pain persistence, measured by days in pain in a fixed time period, provides useful additional information
2,636 citations