Low back pain with no identified underlying cause is categorised as primary musculoskeletal pain by the International Association for the Study of Pain. In April 2021, the National Institute for Care and Excellence (NICE) published updated guidance for the management of primary chronic pain conditions in England. As part of the De-STRESS pain study, we explored the perspectives of GPs on the updated guideline and impact upon clinical practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 GPs in England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison techniques. GPs agreed with the recommendations restricting pharmacological options for pain management and reflected that they now had an expert reference to back-up their decision-making and could use the guidance in potentially difficult conversations with patients. Frustration was expressed by GPs about the lack of alternative options to medication, as the non-pharmacological recommendations were difficult to implement, had lengthy waiting lists, or were unavailable in their locality.Background and study purpose
Methods and results
Low mood and distress are commonly reported with by people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and may be mislabelled as ‘depression’. In order to understand how pain-related distress is conceptualised and managed in primary care consultations, we explored understanding of pain-related distress and depression from the perspectives of people with persistent musculoskeletal pain and general practitioners (GPs). Semi-structured interviews with 21 GPs and 21 people with persistent musculoskeletal pain were conducted. The majority of people with pain had back pain (15/21). Data were analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Participants described challenges distinguishing between distress and depression in the context of persistent pain but described strategies to make this distinction. Some people with pain described how acceptance of their situation was key, involving optimism about the future and creation of a new identity. Some GPs expressed ‘therapeutic nihilism’, with uncertainty about the cause of pain and thus how to manage people with both pain and distress, whilst GPs who could identify and build on optimism with patients described how this could help the patient to move forwards.Background and study purpose
Method and results
Previous research in people with musculoskeletal low back pain (MLBP) in primary care shows that a reliable and valid measure of consultation-based reassurance enables testing reassurance against patient' outcomes. Little is known about the role of reassurance in people with MLBP consulting spinal surgeons, especially in cases where surgeons recommend not to have surgery. There might be several reasons to exclude surgery as a treatment option, that range from positive messages about symptoms resolving to negative messages, suggesting that all reasonable avenue of treatment have been exhausted. AIM to explore patient's experience of consultation-based reassurance in people with MLBP who have been recently advised not to have surgery. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 low back pain patients who had recently consulted for spinal surgery and were advised that surgery is not indicated. Interview were audio recorded and transcribed, and then coded using NVIVO qualitative software and analysed using the Framework Analysis.Background
Methods
Although pain is usually described as a private experience, how pain is understood and responded to by others is important. A crucial feature of this process is empathy. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between empathy for pain and observers' health anxiety and fear of pain. The role of the observer's sex and age were also examined. In this study 159 participants (73 males, mean age=41, SD=19.6) were presented with 16 images of individuals in pain (8 female, 8 male), and subsequently rated their empathy towards them. Participants then completed the fear of pain and health anxiety measures. Both fear of pain and health anxiety were positively associated with empathy for pain, but in the regression model only fear of pain was a significant positive predictor of empathy for pain (Purpose of the study and background
Methods and results
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and greater understanding of mechanisms leading to increased disability in LBP is necessary. Pain-related guilt and in particular social guilt (one type of pain-related guilt) has recently been linked to greater depression, anxiety and disability in LBP. Research has also shown that greater acceptance of pain is associated with less pain intensity, depression, pain-related anxiety and disability, and with greater daily activity and overall wellbeing in chronic pain patients. The current study aim was to understand the relationship between pain-related guilt and pain-related acceptance in LBP. The study examined the relationship between pain-related guilt and pain-related acceptance in a sample of 287 LBP patients. A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted in which known correlates of pain-related acceptance (pain intensity, disability, depression and anxiety) were controlled for, with the objective of testing whether pain-related guilt explains any unique variance in pain-related acceptance. Social guilt was the strongest predictor of reduced pain-related acceptance in all analyses.Statement of the purposes of the study and background:
Summary of the methods used and the results:
A distinction has been posited between cognitive (informational) and affective (emotional) reassurance, with a suggestion that affective reassurance may negatively affect patient outcomes by reducing patients' motivation to engage with information conducive to recovery. Cognitive reassurance, though, provides explanations and information to help patients self-manage, and so aids recovery. However, research is lacking on how each actually affects patient outcomes in primary care. To develop a valid measure of practitioner reassurance, and assess the impact of different reassurance strategies on patients' outcomes.Background:
Purpose of the Study:
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.Purpose of the study and background
Summary of the methods used and the results
In the majority of low back pain (LBP) patients a definitive cause for back pain cannot be established; consequently, many patients report feeling uncertain about their diagnosis. They also experience pain-related guilt, which can be divided into: social guilt, managing pain guilt and verification of pain guilt. This study aimed to test a theoretical (causal) model, which proposed that diagnostic uncertainty leads to pain-related guilt, which leads to depression, anxiety and finally to disability. Structural equation modelling was employed to test this model on 438 participants with LBP. The model demonstrated an adequate to good fit with the data. Diagnostic uncertainty predicts all three types of guilt. Verification of pain guilt predicts disability, managing pain guilt predicts anxiety, while social guilt was the strongest predictor of negative outcomes, predicting depression, anxiety and disability.Purpose of the study and background
Summary of the methods used and the results
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. 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. 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, RAMSEA= 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 patients.Purpose of the study and background:
Summary of the methods used and the results:
