Psychometric Properties of a Healthcare Provider Burden Scale: Preliminary Results.

Measures are lacking that assess the clinical burden that healthcare providers perceive in treating chronic conditions. This study presents a preliminary psychometric evaluation of a novel self-report measure of provider burden in the treatment of chronic pain. Data for eight burden items were available from vignette studies examining the effects of patient pain severity and medical evidence on clinical burden and judgments for chronic pain. Participants (N = 922) were 109 physicians and 813 non-physicians, all acting in the role of physician (232 community members without chronic pain, 105 community members with chronic pain, and 476 American Chronic Pain Association members with chronic pain). Factor analyses of burden items yielded one-factor solutions in all samples, with high factor loadings and adequate explained variance. Internal consistency reliability was uniformly high (≥ 0.87). Burden scores were significantly higher among physicians compared to nonphysicians; nonphysician groups did not differ on any burden score. Significant correlations of burden score with indicators of psychosocial complications in patient care supported scale validity. Burden score was not associated with gender, age, or education. Results provide initial support for the psychometric properties of a Healthcare Provider Burden Scale (HPBS). Research utilizing larger and representative healthcare provider groups is needed.

Community Perspectives on Patient Credibility and Provider Burden in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined factors influencing lay perceptions of a provider's clinical burden in providing care to a person with chronic pain. DESIGN: In a between-subjects design that varied three levels of pain severity (4, 6, or 8 out of 10) with two levels of medical evidence (low/high), participants rated the credibility of pain reported by a hypothetical patient and the psychosocial factors expected to mediate the effects of evidence and severity on a provider's burden of care. SETTING: A randomized vignette study in which community participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. SUBJECTS: 337 community participants. METHODS: Using a Qualtrics platform, participants read one of six vignettes describing a hypothetical patient with varying levels of medical evidence and pain severity and then rated perceived pain severity, pain credibility, psychosocial variables, and burden. RESULTS: Serial mediation models accounted for all effects of medical evidence and pain severity on burden. Low medical evidence was associated with increased burden, as mediated through lower pain credibility and greater concerns about patient depression, opioid abuse, and learning pain management. Higher levels of reported pain severity were associated with increased burden, as mediated through greater pain discounting and concerns about opioid abuse. CONCLUSIONS: The lay public is skeptical of chronic pain that is not supported by medical evidence or is reported at high levels of severity, raising concerns about psychosocial complications and drug seeking and expectations of higher burden of care. Such negative stereotypes can pose obstacles to people seeking necessary care if they or others develop a chronic pain condition.

Physician Judgments and the Burden of Chronic Pain.

Objective: In a moderated mediation model, this study examined the interaction effect of pain severity and medical evidence on physician judgments of chronic pain. The effects of higher pain severity on physician judgments were expected to be mediated through anticipated clinical burden, but only when medical evidence was low. Design: Participants were randomly assigned to one of six case descriptions of a chronic pain patient in a 3 × 2 design that varied by reported pain severity (4, 6, 8/10) and medical evidence (low vs high). Setting: An academic training program for medical residents/fellows. Subjects: Residents/fellows in clinical departments at postgraduate year 2 or higher (N = 109). Methods: Participants read case descriptions and then made judgments about the patient and rated the level of burden they expected to assume in treating the patient. Results: Higher pain severity occasioned greater pain discounting and higher likelihood of prescribing opioid medication. When medical evidence was low, participants had less trust in the patient's pain report, attributed pain more to psychosocial than medical factors, and were less likely to refer for possible surgery. Analyses yielded no support for moderated mediation as expected burden was high across all conditions. Significant associations were found between expected burden and multiple clinical judgments. Conclusions: Results did not support the proposed moderated mediation model as all patients were expected to be burdensome across clinical presentations, reflecting negative expectations of patients with chronic pain. Such expectations can have adverse implications for patient-provider communication, shared decision-making, and the delivery of personalized care.

Medical Judgments Across the Range of Reported Pain Severity: Clinician and Lay Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: While increasing evidence suggests that observers discount high-severity chronic pain, factors that occasion such discounting are poorly understood, particularly regarding health provider vs lay perspectives. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effects of supporting medical evidence and comorbid psychological distress (pain behavior) on medical student and lay clinical judgments of increasingly severe patient pain reports. DESIGN: In a 2 × 2 × 2 × (7) mixed between- and within-subject design, participants (medical students vs lay) made clinical judgments after reading vignettes describing a hypothetical patient that varied in levels of medical evidence and pain behavior (low vs high) and pain severity (4/10-10/10). SUBJECTS: Fourth-year medical students (N = 115) and lay persons in the community (N = 300) participated in this research. RESULTS: While both medical student and lay judgments plateaued at high levels of pain severity, judgments regarding cause (medical vs psychological), treatment (opioid prescription), and disability showed growing divergence as levels of reported pain severity increased. Divergence relative to medical and psychological causes of pain was found irrespective of the level of supporting medical evidence; divergence relative to opioid treatment and support for a disability claim was found when supporting medical evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate differing expectations of chronic pain treatment for health care providers relative to the lay public that could impact clinical care, especially at high pain severity levels, where lay expectations diverge significantly from those of health professionals.

Professional Decision-Making in Research (PDR): The Validity of a New Measure.

In this paper, we report on the development and validity of the Professional Decision-Making in Research (PDR) measure, a vignette-based test that examines decision-making strategies used by investigators when confronted with challenging situations in the context of empirical research. The PDR was administered online with a battery of validity measures to a group of NIH-funded researchers and research trainees who were diverse in terms of age, years of experience, types of research, and race. The PDR demonstrated adequate reliability (alpha = .84) and parallel form correlation (r = .70). As hypothesized, the PDR was significantly negatively correlated with narcissism, cynicism, moral disengagement, and compliance disengagement; it was not correlated with socially desirable responding. In regression analysis, the strongest predictors of higher PDR scores were low compliance disengagement, speaking English as a native language, conducting clinical research with human subjects, and low levels of narcissism. Given that the PDR was written at an eighth grade reading level to be suitable for use with English as a second language participants and that only one-fourth of items focused on clinical research, further research into the possible roles of culture and research ethics training across specialties is warranted. This initial validity study demonstrates the potential usefulness of the PDR as an educational outcome assessment measure and a research instrument for studies on professionalism and integrity in research.

Advancing a national agenda to eliminate disparities in pain care: directions for health policy, education, practice, and research.

BACKGROUND: Pain is strongly associated with significant personal and societal costs. A crucial element of any initiative on pain must focus on eliminating pain care disparities that are pervasive throughout the United States health care settings. OBJECTIVES: This report focuses on macro-level factors related to pain care disparities in the United States that may be amenable to policy interventions. METHODS: We identify concrete opportunities for achieving equity in pain care, especially those occasioned by recent legislative changes in the United States health care system. An aggressive policy, advocacy, and research agenda is synthesized in five domains: 1) structural/system; 2) policy and advocacy; 3) workforce; 4) provider; and 5) research. RESULTS: Inequities in pain care remain an important and neglected health policy concern. Many direct and indirect provisions within the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other national initiatives that leverage on ACA offer opportunities to achieve equity in pain care. These include changes in insurance, in public, provider, and legislative education, in primary care and pain specialist training, improving workforce diversity, achieving uniformity in race/ethnicity data collection, emphasizing patient-centered outcomes research, and encouraging focus on pain care disparities within the comparative effectiveness research paradigm. CONCLUSIONS: Recent national legislative initiatives within ACA are expected to generate multilevel efforts that will impact the flow of funding to address the pervasive issue of disparities. It is an opportune time for the pain community to take a lead in implementing a concerted agenda on pain care disparities in order to leverage these national initiatives.

Judging pain and disability: effects of pain severity and physician specialty.

While considerable evidence indicates that the assessment of pain is an exercise in social cognition, provider contributions to pain assessment have received little attention. This study compared internist versus neurosurgeon ratings of pain and pain-related disability for hypothetical patients reporting either low or high levels of low back pain. Using practice characteristics as covariates, a multivariate analysis of covariance showed that both physician groups rated pain severity, but not measures of disability, as significantly lower for the low pain severity condition. Relative to internists, neurosurgeons rated both pain severity and pain-related disability as significantly lower, regardless of patient-reported pain severity. There were no interactions between physician specialty and patient-reported pain severity. Practice characteristics accounted for relatively little variance in ratings. Results are discussed in terms of differences in comparison levels for the physician groups, as well as implications for clinical practice and disability determination systems.

A Preliminary Study of Provider Burden in the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Perspectives of Physicians and People with Chronic Pain.

This study compared perceptions of the burden of patient care and associated clinical judgments between physicians and people with chronic pain (PWCP) in a 2 × 3 × 2 between-subjects design that varied participant type, patient-reported pain severity (4/6-8/10), and supporting medical evidence (low/high). One hundred and nine physicians and 476 American Chronic Pain Association members were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 conditions. Respondents estimated the clinical burden they would assume as the treating physician of a hypothetical patient with chronic low back pain, and made clinical judgments regarding that patient. Physician burden ratings were significantly higher than PWCP ratings, and clinical impressions (eg, trust in pain report, medical attribution) and management concerns (eg, opioid abuse risk) were relatively less favorable. Neither pain severity nor medical evidence affected burden ratings significantly. High medical evidence was associated with more favorable clinical impressions; higher pain severity led to more discounting of patient pain reports. Burden was significantly correlated with a range of clinical judgments. Results indicate that physicians and PWCP differ in their perceptions of provider burden and related clinical judgments in ways that could impact treatment collaboration. Further research is needed that examines provider burden in actual clinical practice. PERSPECTIVE: Physicians and people with chronic pain (PWCP) estimated the clinical burden of patient care and made judgments about a hypothetical patient with chronic pain. Physician burden ratings were higher and clinical judgments less favorable, relative to PWCP respondents. These differences could impact treatment collaboration and merit study in clinical practice.

Patient Perceptions of Physician Burden in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

While patient perceptions of burden to caregivers is of recognized clinical significance among people with chronic pain, perceived burden to treating physicians has not been studied. This study examined how people with chronic pain perceived levels of medical evidence (low vs high) and pain severity (4,6,8/10) to influence physician burden and how burden then mediated expected clinical judgments. 476 people with chronic pain read vignettes describing a hypothetical patient with varying levels of medical evidence and pain severity from the perspective of a treating physician, rated the burden that patient care would pose, and made a range of clinical judgments. The effect of pain severity on clinical judgments was expected to interact with medical evidence and be conditionally mediated by burden. Although no associations with burden were found for the pain severity x medical evidence interaction or for pain severity alone, low levels of supporting medical evidence yielded higher burden ratings. Burden significantly mediated medical evidence effects on judgments of symptom credibility, clinical improvement, and psychosocial dysfunction. Results indicate that perceived physician burden negatively influenced judgments of patients with chronic pain, beyond the direct effects of medical evidence. Implications are discussed for clinical practice, as well as future research. PERSPECTIVE: : People with chronic pain expect physicians to view the care of patients without supporting medical evidence as burdensome. Higher burden is associated with less symptom credibility, more psychosocial dysfunction, and less treatment benefit. Perceived physician burden appears to impact how patients approach treatment, with potentially adverse implications for clinical practice.

The Cancer Pain Inventory: preliminary development and validation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a Cancer Pain Inventory (CPI) that measures cancer patients' beliefs and concerns about pain. This paper describes development and pilot testing of a preliminary version of the CPI and describes its psychometric properties including its reliability and validity relative to established pain measures. METHODS: Subjects were recruited from inpatient and outpatient oncology services of an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Participants completed the 50 potential CPI items and these standard measures-Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test, Survey of Pain Attitudes, Brief Pain Inventory, Pain Disability Index, and Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale. The magnitude and significance of associations between the CPI and the other measures were examined. RESULTS: Of 366 patients who were eligible and agreed to participate in the study, 262 completed the questionnaires. Principal components analyses were used to select items most appropriate for retention in the preliminary version of the CPI and to describe its factor structure. Based on the content of items that loaded on each factor, the five factors were labeled as Catastrophizing, Interference with Functioning, Stoicism, Social Aspects, and Concerns about Pain Medication. Correlations between the CPI and other measures supported construct validity of the five CPI factors. CONCLUSIONS: The results supported the validity of the CPI as a measure of five constructs relevant to the experience of pain in the cancer setting. The results also underscored the presence of unique features of cancer-related pain that clearly differ from commonly recognized dimensions of chronic, non-cancer-related pain.

Long-term adjustment to work-related low back pain: associations with socio-demographics, claim processes, and post-settlement adjustment.

OBJECTIVE: Predict long-term adjustment (pain intensity, pain-related catastrophizing, and pain-related disability) from socio-demographic, claim process, and post-settlement adjustment variables in a cohort of 374 Workers' Compensation low back claimants. METHODS: Age- and gender-matched subsamples of African Americans and Caucasians were randomly selected for long-term follow-up (6 years post-settlement) from a larger, existing cohort of Workers' Compensation low back claimants in Missouri. Computer-assisted telephone interviews were used to assess pain, catastrophizing, and disability. Path analysis and logistic regression analysis were used to predict long-term adjustment from socio-demographic variables (race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status), Workers' Compensation claim process variables (surgery, diagnosis, claim duration, treatment costs, settlement awards, and disability rating), and adjustment at baseline. RESULTS: Poorer long-term adjustment (higher levels of pain, catastrophizing, and pain-related disability) was significantly predicted by relatively poorer adjustment at baseline, lower socioeconomic status, and African American race. African American race associations were also mediated through lower socioeconomic status. Higher levels of occupational disability, as measured by long-term rates of unemployment and social security disability, were also predicted by African American race (in addition to age and claim process factors). CONCLUSION: Long-term adjustment to low back pain in this cohort of Workers' Compensation claimants was stable, relative to short-term adjustment soon after settlement. Long-term adjustment was worse for people of lower socioeconomic status, particularly for economically disadvantaged African Americans, suggesting the possibility of race- and class-based disparities in the Workers' Compensation system.

Provider judgments of patients in pain: seeking symptom certainty.

OBJECTIVE: Uncertainty often surrounds judgments of pain, especially when pain is chronic. In order to simplify their decisions, providers adduce information from a variety of sources. Unfortunately, an extensive literature suggests that the information that is brought to bear actually can bias pain judgments, resulting in judgments that consistently differ from patient reports, with a potential negative impact on treatment. METHODS: This review examines the pain assessment literature from a social cognition perspective that emphasizes interpersonal and situational factors that can influence judgments. Consistent with that model, it organizes research findings into three broad domains that have been shown to systematically influence assessments of pain, involving patient, provider, and situational factors. RESULTS: A causal model for pain judgment is proposed, and its implications for clinical research and practice are explored. CONCLUSIONS: In order to minimize the uncertainty that can characterize symptoms such as chronic pain, practitioners bring information to bear on pain assessment that can lead to misjudgments. While intuitively appealing, much of the information that is considered often has little association with pain severity and/or adjustment. A more rational decision-making process can reduce the judgment errors common to pain assessment and treatment.

Vulnerability in clinical research with patients in pain: a risk analysis.

Some have characterized patients living with intractable pain as a vulnerable population in both clinical and research settings. Labeling the population as vulnerable, however, does not provide clarity regarding the potential risks that they face when they participate in research. Instead, research vulnerability for patients in pain is a function of an interaction between their pain conditions and elements of the research enterprise. Therefore, the identification of potential risks requires consideration not only of characteristics of patients with chronic pain, but also consideration of features of researchers, the quality of institutional oversight, and the medical/social environment within which the research is conducted. This paper provides an analysis of those risks and provides some suggestions as to how the risks might be better managed.

Empathy: necessary for effective pain management?

Empathy is a provider attribute that has been a topic of increased clinical interest, particularly as it relates to pain. This article examines various dimensions of the pain and empathy literature: definitions of empathy, research regarding the psychophysiology of empathy for pain, and research related to empathy in psychological and medical care. Research regarding topics broadly related to empathy is also reviewed, including communication skills and patient-centered care. Although this literature supports the clinical value of provider empathy and/or behaviors likely to reflect empathy, little research has explicitly examined empathy in the treatment of pain. Nonetheless, when considered in the broader context, the evidence is sufficient to draw some conclusions regarding approaches to pain care that are likely to reflect and/or elicit provider empathy and are central to effective pain management.

Persistent Post-Mastectomy Pain: Risk Factors and Current Approaches to Treatment.

Persistent Post-Mastectomy Pain (PPMP) is a common condition that can follow surgeries for breast cancer, the most common cancer in women. Because of the frequency of PPMP and its potential severity, it has received increasing research attention. This manuscript reviews the recent research literature, beginning with a brief history and then relevant medical, surgical, demographic, and psychosocial risk factors. Subsequently, social, psychological, and functional sequelae that have been linked to PPMPS are considered, as is research on current pharmacological, psychological, and rehabilitative approaches to treatment. The review concludes with a discussion of directions for future research and treatment that might reduce the incidence and impact of PPMP on breast cancer survivors. PERSPECTIVE: This article describes current research literature involving mechanisms, risks, and treatments related to persistent post-mastectomy pain. Implications of research findings also are discussed for pre- and post-surgical approaches to pain management, current treatments, and promising research directions.

An interdisciplinary expert consensus statement on assessment of pain in older persons.

This paper represents an expert-based consensus statement on pain assessment among older adults. It is intended to provide recommendations that will be useful for both researchers and clinicians. Contributors were identified based on literature prominence and with the aim of achieving a broad representation of disciplines. Recommendations are provided regarding the physical examination and the assessment of pain using self-report and observational methods (suitable for seniors with dementia). In addition, recommendations are provided regarding the assessment of the physical and emotional functioning of older adults experiencing pain. The literature underlying the consensus recommendations is reviewed. Multiple revisions led to final reviews of 2 complete drafts before consensus was reached.

Chronic Orofacial Pain: Burning Mouth Syndrome and Other Neuropathic Disorders.

Chronic orofacial pain is a symptom associated with a wide range of neuropathic, neurovascular, idiopathic, and myofascial conditions that affect a significant proportion of the population. While the collective impact of the subset of the orofacial pain disorders involving neurogenic and idiopathic mechanisms is substantial, some of these are relatively uncommon. Hence, patients with these disorders can be vulnerable to misdiagnosis, sometimes for years, increasing the symptom burden and delaying effective treatment. This manuscript first reviews the decision tree to be followed in diagnosing any neuropathic pain condition, as well as the levels of evidence needed to make a diagnosis with each of several levels of confidence: definite, probable, or possible. It then examines the clinical literature related to the idiopathic and neurogenic conditions that can occasion chronic orofacial pain, including burning mouth syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, glossopharyngeal neuralgia, post-herpetic neuralgia, and atypical odontalgia. Temporomandibular disorders also are examined as are other headache conditions, even though they are not neurologic conditions, because they are common and can mimic symptoms of the latter disorders. For each of these conditions, the paper reviews literature regarding incidence and prevalence, physiologic and other contributing factors, diagnostic signs and symptoms, and empirical evidence regarding treatments. Finally, in order to improve the quality and accuracy of clinical diagnosis, as well as the efficiency with which effective treatment is initiated and delivered, criteria are offered that can be instrumental in making a differential diagnosis.