What Are the Mechanisms of Action of Cognitive-Behavioral, Mind-Body, and Exercise-based Interventions for Pain and Disability in People With Chronic Primary Musculoskeletal Pain?: A Systematic Review of Mediation Studies From Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review examined studies that used mediation analysis to investigate the mechanisms of action of cognitive-behavioral, mind-body, and exercise-based interventions for pain and disability in people with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched 5 electronic databases for articles that conducted mediation analyses of randomized controlled trials to either test or estimate indirect effects. RESULTS: We found 17 studies (n=4423), including 90 mediation models examining the role of 22 putative mediators on pain or disability, of which 4 had partially mediated treatment effect; 8 had mixed results, and 10 did not mediate treatment effect. The conditions studied were chronic whiplash-associated pain, chronic low back pain, chronic knee pain, and mixed group of chronic primary musculoskeletal pain. DISCUSSION: We observed that several of the studies included in our systematic review identified similar mechanisms of action, even between different interventions and conditions. However, methodological limitations were common. In conclusion, there are still substantial gaps with respect to understanding how cognitive-behavioral, mind-body, and exercise-based interventions work to reduce pain and disability in people with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain.

Choosing what works for whom: towards a better use of mechanistic knowledge in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians commonly try to use mechanism-based knowledge to make sense of the complexity and uncertainty of chronic pain treatments to create a rationale for their clinical decision-making. Although this seems intuitive, there are some problems with this approach. DISCUSSION: The widespread use of mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice can be a source of confusion for clinicians, especially when complex interventions with different proposed mechanisms of action are equally effective. Although the available mechanistic evidence is still of very poor quality, in choosing from various treatment options for people with chronic pain, an approach that correctly incorporates mechanistic reasoning might aid clinical thinking and practice. CONCLUSION: By explaining that not all evidence of mechanism is the same and by making a proposal to start using mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice properly, we hope to help clinicians to incorporate mechanistic reasoning to prioritize and start choosing what may best work for whom.

Distorted distance perception to reachable points in people with chronic shoulder pain.

Perception is not simply a carbon copy of the real world, but is subject to distortions that may reflect protective drive. This study aimed to investigate whether people with chronic shoulder pain show perceptual distortions of space and body that may promote protective behavior. Eighty-four people with shoulder pain and 51 healthy controls participated. Participants estimated (1) distances to points on a cork-board within and outside reaching distance, and (2) the perceived length of their own arms. A novel measure of movement-related pain was also used to determine whether movement-related pain relates to perceptual distortion. Overall, distance and arm length estimates did not differ between groups, nor did participants perceive their arms to be of different length. However, a moderate correlation between movement-related pain and the index of distance perception was found within the pain group, specifically for distance estimates to points within reach. Our results suggest that distorted perception is not a typical consequence of chronic shoulder pain; however, that it may occur in cases where pain is strongly linked to movement. Our findings have implications for understanding avoidance of movement in people with persistent pain.