The Psychologically Informed Practice Consultation Roadmap: A Clinical Implementation Strategy.

Psychologically informed practice (PiP) includes a special focus on psychosocial obstacles to recovery, but research trials have revealed significant difficulties in implementing PiP outside of research environments. Qualitative studies have identified problems of both competence and confidence in tackling the psychosocial aspects of care, with a tendency to prefer dealing with the more mechanical aspects of care. In PiP, the distinction between assessment and management is not clear-cut. Analysis of the problem is part of the intervention, and guided self-management begins with the initial detective work by the patient, who is encouraged to develop successful and relevant behavior change. This requires a different style and focus of communication that some clinicians find difficult to enact. In this Perspective, the PiP Consultation Roadmap is offered as a guide for clinical implementation to establish a therapeutic relationship, develop patient-centered communication, and guide effective pain self-management. These strategies are illustrated through the metaphor of the patient learning to drive, with the therapist as a driving instructor and the patient as a student driver. For convenience, the Roadmap is depicted in 7 stages. Each stage represents aspects of the clinical consultation in a recommended order, although the Roadmap should be viewed as a general guide with a degree of flexibility to accommodate individual differences and optimize PiP interventions. It is anticipated that the experienced PiP clinician will find it progressively easier to implement the Roadmap as the building blocks and style of consultation become more familiar.

Psychologically Informed Practice: The Importance of Communication in Clinical Implementation.

There has been increasing interest in the secondary prevention of chronic pain and pain-associated disability over the past 3 decades. In 2011, psychologically informed practice (PiP) was suggested as a framework for managing persistent and recurrent pain, and, since then, it has underpinned the development of stratified care linking risk identification (screening). Although PiP research trials have demonstrated clinical and economic advantage over usual care, pragmatic studies have been less successful, and qualitative studies have identified implementation difficulties in both system delivery and individual clinical management. Effort has been put into the development of screening tools, the development of training, and the assessment of outcomes; however, the nature of the consultation has remained relatively unexplored. In this Perspective, a review of the nature of clinical consultations and the clinician-patient relationship is followed by reflections on the nature of communication and the outcome of training courses. Consideration is given to the optimization of communication, including the use of standardized patient-reported measures and the role of the therapist in facilitating adaptive behavior change. Several challenges in implementing a PiP approach in day-to-day practice are then considered. Following brief consideration of the impact of recent developments in health care, the Perspective concludes with a brief introduction to the PiP Consultation Roadmap (the subject of a companion paper), the use of which is suggested as a way of structuring the consultation with the flexibility required for a patient-centered approach to guided self-management of chronic pain conditions.

Pain psychology in the 21st century: lessons learned and moving forward.

Background and aims In the spring of 2019, Professor Steven J. Linton, the founder of the Center for Health and Medical Psychology (CHAMP) at Örebro University, Sweden, formally retired. As a tribute to his scholarly work covering decades of influence and inspiration to the field of pain psychology, the research center organized a topical conference titled "Pain in the 21st century: Where do we come from and where are we going?", which resulted in this state-of the-art synthesis. The aim of this declaration is to highlight lessons learned but not in the least is meant to inspire and guide our continued journey forward, developing pain psychology into the 21st century. Methods Several collaborators of Professor Linton have summarized and reflected on the current state-of-the-art of pain psychology from the perspective of his input to the field, as well as on developments from the last years of advancements in pain psychology. Results The topics have been divided into six themed sections covering the fear avoidance model, transdiagnostics, secondary prevention, risk- and protective factors, communication and contextual factors. The sections cover a broad spectrum, from basic experimental studies, integrating emotion and motivational theories into current theoretical models, to applied research on the effect of early interventions as well as sophisticated emotion-focused treatment models for pain patients with concurrent emotional ill-health. Conclusions There have been major advancements within pain psychology research during the last decades, moving the field towards a more comprehensive picture, taking emotional and motivational aspects into account to understand pain sufferers. Although psychologically informed interventions in general mainly focus on the individual, it has been put forward that pain management is highly influenced by the surrounding environment, including communication with health care providers, and the occupational and social context. Implications Professor Steven J. Linton has been at the forefront of pain psychology research during the last decades, and inspired by his work this journey will continue into the 21st century, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the understanding and treatment for all people suffering from persistent and disabling pain.

Effects of Biopsychosocial Education on the Clinical Judgments of Medical Students and GP Trainees Regarding Future Risk of Disability in Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lower back pain (CLBP) is a major health care burden and often results in workplace absenteeism. It is a priority for appropriate management of CLBP to get individuals back to work as early as possible. Interventions informed by the flags approach, which integrates cognitive and behavioral approaches via identification of biopsychosocial barriers to recovery, have resulted in reduced pain-related work absences and increased return to work for individuals with CLBP. However, research indicates that physicians' adherence to biopsychosocial guidelines is low. OBJECTIVE: The current study examined the effects of a flags approach-based educational intervention on clinical judgments of medical students and general practitioner (GP) trainees regarding the risk of future disability of CLBP patients. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (trial registration number: ISRCTN53670726). SETTING: University classroom. SUBJECTS: Medical students and GP trainees. METHODS: Using 40 fictional CLBP cases, differences in clinical judgment accuracy, weighting, and speed (experimental N = 32) were examined pre- and postintervention, as were flags approach knowledge, pain attitudes and beliefs, and empathy, in comparison with a no-intervention control group (control N = 31). RESULTS: Results revealed positive effects of the educational intervention on flags approach knowledge, pain-related attitudes and beliefs, and judgment weighting of psychologically based cues; results are discussed in light of existing theory and research. CONCLUSIONS: Short flags approach-based educational video interventions on clinical judgment-making regarding the risk of future disability of CLBP patients may provide opportunities to gain biopsychosocial knowledge, overcome associated attitude barriers, and facilitate development of clinical judgment-making more aligned with psychological cues.

The effectiveness of self-management interventions in adults with chronic orofacial pain: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial risk factors associated with chronic orofacial pain are amenable to self-management. However, current management involves invasive therapies which lack an evidence base and has the potential to cause iatrogenic harm. OBJECTIVES: To determine: (a) whether self-management is more effective than usual care in improving pain intensity and psychosocial well-being and (b) optimal components of self-management interventions. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Clinical Trials.gov were searched. Meta-analysis was used to determine effectiveness, and GRADE was used to rate quality, certainty and applicability of evidence. RESULTS: Fourteen trials were included. Meta-analyses showed self-management was effective for long-term pain intensity (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.47 to -0.17) and depression (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.15). GRADE analysis showed a high score for certainty of evidence for these outcomes and significant effects for additional outcomes of activity interference (-0.29 95% CI -0.47 to -0.11) and muscle palpation pain (SMD -0.58 95% CI -0.92 to -0.24). Meta-regression showed nonsignificant effects for biofeedback on long-term pain (-0.16, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.17, p-value = 0.360) and depression (-0.13, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.23, p-value = 0.475). CONCLUSIONS: Self-management interventions are effective for patients with chronic orofacial pain. Packages of physical and psychosocial self-regulation and education appear beneficial. Early self-management of chronic orofacial pain should be a priority for future testing. SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review provides clear evidence for effectiveness of combined biomedical and psychological interventions (incorporating self-management approaches) on long-term outcomes in the management of chronic orofacial (principally TMD) pain. Self-management should be a priority for early intervention in primary care in preference to invasive, irreversible and costly therapies. Further research is needed firstly to clarify the relative effectiveness of specific components of self-management, both individually and in conjunction, and secondly on outcomes in other types of chronic orofacial pains.

Effect of Intensive Patient Education vs Placebo Patient Education on Outcomes in Patients With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients with acute low back pain do not recover with basic first-line care (advice, reassurance, and simple analgesia, if necessary). It is unclear whether intensive patient education improves clinical outcomes for those patients already receiving first-line care. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intensive patient education for patients with acute low back pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruited patients from general practices, physiotherapy clinics, and a research center in Sydney, Australia, between September 10, 2013, and December 2, 2015. Trial follow-up was completed in December 17, 2016. Primary care practitioners invited 618 patients presenting with acute low back pain to participate. Researchers excluded 416 potential participants. All of the 202 eligible participants had low back pain of fewer than 6 weeks' duration and a high risk of developing chronic low back pain according to Predicting the Inception of Chronic Pain (PICKUP) Tool, a validated prognostic model. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either patient education or placebo patient education. Interventions: All participants received recommended first-line care for acute low back pain from their usual practitioner. Participants received additional 2 × 1-hour sessions of patient education (information on pain and biopsychosocial contributors plus self-management techniques, such as remaining active and pacing) or placebo patient education (active listening, without information or advice). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain intensity (11-point numeric rating scale) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included disability (24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 1 week, and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Of 202 participants randomized for the trial, the mean (SD) age of participants was 45 (14.5) years and 103 (51.0%) were female. Retention rates were greater than 90% at all time points. Intensive patient education was not more effective than placebo patient education at reducing pain intensity (3-month mean [SD] pain intensity: 2.1 [2.4] vs 2.4 [2.2]; mean difference at 3 months, -0.3 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0.3]). There was a small effect of intensive patient education on the secondary outcome of disability at 1 week (mean difference, -1.6 points on a 24-point scale [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1]) and 3 months (mean difference, -1.7 points, [95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2]) but not at 6 or 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: Adding 2 hours of patient education to recommended first-line care for patients with acute low back pain did not improve pain outcomes. Clinical guideline recommendations to provide complex and intensive support to high-risk patients with acute low back pain may have been premature. Trial Registration: Australian Clinical Trial Registration Number: 12612001180808.

Advancing Psychologically Informed Practice for Patients With Persistent Musculoskeletal Pain: Promise, Pitfalls, and Solutions.

There has been growing interest in psychologically oriented pain management over the past 3 to 4 decades, including a 2011 description of psychologically informed practice (PIP) for low back pain. PIP requires a broader focus than traditional biomechanical and pathology-based approaches that have been traditionally used to manage musculoskeletal pain. A major focus of PIP is addressing the behavioral aspects of pain (ie, peoples' responses to pain) by identifying individual expectations, beliefs, and feelings as prognostic factors for clinical and occupational outcomes indicating progression to chronicity. Since 2011, the interest in PIP seems to be growing, as evidenced by its use in large trials, inclusion in scientific conferences, increasing evidence base, and expansion to other musculoskeletal pain conditions. Primary care physicians and physical therapists have delivered PIP as part of a stratified care approach involving screening and targeting of treatment for people at high risk for continued pain-associated disability. Furthermore, PIP is consistent with recent national priorities emphasizing nonpharmacological pain management options. In this perspective, PIP techniques that range in complexity are described, considerations for implementation in clinical practice are offered, and future directions that will advance the understanding of PIP are outlined.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patient education for acute low back pain (PREVENT Trial): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Statistical analysis plans increase the transparency of decisions made in the analysis of clinical trial results. The purpose of this paper is to detail the planned analyses for the PREVENT trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patient education for acute low back pain. RESULTS: We report the pre-specified principles, methods, and procedures to be adhered to in the main analysis of the PREVENT trial data. The primary outcome analysis will be based on Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which can test treatment effects at specific time points, and the assumptions of this analysis are outlined. We also outline the treatment of secondary outcomes and planned sensitivity analyses. We provide decisions regarding the treatment of missing data, handling of descriptive and process measure data, and blinded review procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Making public the pre-specified statistical analysis plan for the PREVENT trial minimizes the potential for bias in the analysis of trial data, and in the interpretation and reporting of trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612001180808 (https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12612001180808).

Mediators of Treatment Effect in the Back In Action Trial: Using Latent Growth Modeling to Take Change Over Time Into Account.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether change in fear-avoidance beliefs was a mediator of the effect of treatment on disability outcome, and to test an analytical approach, latent growth modeling, not often applied to mediation analysis. METHODS: Secondary analysis was carried out on a randomized controlled trial designed to compare an intervention addressing fear-avoidance beliefs (n=119) with treatment as usual (n=121) for patients with low back pain, which found the intervention to be effective. Latent growth modelling was used to perform a mediation analysis on the trial data to assess the role of change in fear-avoidance beliefs on disability outcome. The product of coefficients with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals was used to calculate the mediating effect. RESULTS: A statistically significant mediating effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the effect of treatment on disability outcome was found (standardized indirect effect -0.35; bias-corrected 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.24). Poor fit of the model to the data suggested that other factors not accounted for in this model are likely to be part of the same mediating pathway. DISCUSSION: Fear-avoidance beliefs were found to mediate the effect of treatment on disability outcome. Measurement of all potential mediator variables in future studies would help to more strongly identify which factors explain observed treatment effects. Latent growth modelling was found to be a useful technique to apply to studies of treatment mediation, suggesting that future studies could use this approach.

A nurse-led clinic for patients consulting with osteoarthritis in general practice: development and impact of training in a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite a lack of service provision for people with osteoarthritis (OA), each year 1 in 5 of the general population consults a GP about a musculoskeletal condition such as OA. Consequently this may provide an opportunity for practice nurses to take an active role in helping patients manage their condition. A nurse led clinic for supporting patients with OA was developed for the MOSAICS study investigating how to implement the NICE 2014 OA Guideline core recommendations. This paper has two main objectives, firstly to provide an overview of the nurse-led OA clinic, and secondly to describe the development, key learning objectives, content and impact of the training to support its delivery. METHODS: A training programme was developed and delivered to provide practice nurses with the knowledge and skill set needed to run the nurse-led OA clinic. The impact of the training programme on knowledge, confidence and OA management was evaluated using case report forms and pre and post training questionnaires. RESULTS: The pre-training questionnaire identified a gap between what practice nurses feel they can do and what they should be doing in line with NICE OA guidelines. Evaluation of the training suggests that it enabled practice nurses to feel more knowledgeable and confident in supporting patients to manage their OA and this was reflected in the clinical management patients received in the nurse-led OA clinics. CONCLUSIONS: A significant gap between what is recommended and what practice nurses feel they can currently provide in terms of OA management was evident. The development of a nurse training programme goes some way to develop a system in primary care for delivering the core recommendations by NICE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The cluster trial linked to this training was conducted from May 2012 through February 2014 by the Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, UK (Trial registration number ISRCTN06984617 ).

Implementation Science and Employer Disability Practices: Embedding Implementation Factors in Research Designs.

Purpose For work disability research to have an impact on employer policies and practices it is important for such research to acknowledge and incorporate relevant aspects of the workplace. The goal of this article is to summarize recent theoretical and methodological advances in the field of Implementation Science, relate these to research of employer disability management practices, and recommend future research priorities. Methods The authors participated in a year-long collaboration culminating in an invited 3-day conference, "Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability", held October 14-16, 2015, in Hopkinton, MA, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the literature, group conference calls to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, review of industry publications, and a conference presentation that included feedback from peer researchers and a question/answer session with a special panel of knowledge experts with direct employer experience. Results A 4-phase implementation model including both outer and inner contexts was adopted as the most appropriate conceptual framework, and aligned well with the set of process evaluation factors described in both the work disability prevention literature and the grey literature. Innovative interventions involving disability risk screening and psychologically-based interventions have been slow to gain traction among employers and insurers. Research recommendations to address this are : (1) to assess organizational culture and readiness for change in addition to individual factors; (2) to conduct process evaluations alongside controlled trials; (3) to analyze decision-making factors among stakeholders; and (4 ) to solicit input from employers and insurers during early phases of study design. Conclusions Future research interventions involving workplace support and involvement to prevent disability may be more feasible for implementation if organizational decision-making factors are imbedded in research designs and interventions are developed to take account of these influences.

Employer Policies and Practices to Manage and Prevent Disability: Conclusion to the Special Issue.

Purpose Research of employer policies and practices to manage and prevent disability spans many disciplines and perspectives, and there are many challenges related to stakeholder collaboration, data access, and interventions. The purpose of this article is to synthesize the findings from a conference and year-long collaboration among a group of invited researchers intended to spur new research innovations in this field. Methods A multidisciplinary team of 26 international researchers with published research in employer-based disability management or related fields were invited to attend a 3-day conference in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA. The conference goals were to review the status of current research of workplace disability management and prevention, examine its relevance for employer decision-making, compare conceptual frameworks or theoretical perspectives, and recommend future research directions. In this paper, we summarize key points from the 6 resulting papers, compare them with an earlier 2005 conference on improving return-to-work research, and conclude with recommendations for further overarching research directions. Results/Conclusion In comparison with the 2005 conference, a greater emphasis was placed on organizational and social factors, employer roles and responsibilities, methods of implementation, non-clinical approaches, and facilitating stay-at-work as well as return-to-work. A special panel of employer consultants and representatives who were featured at the 2015 conference reinforced the importance of organizational culture, leadership style, and financial decision-making strategies at the employer level. Based on the conference proceedings, we recommend that future research in this area should strive for: (a) broader inclusion of workers and workplaces; (b) attention to multilevel influences in the workplace;

Employer Policies and Practices to Manage and Prevent Disability: Foreword to the Special Issue.

Purpose Employer policies and practices have been shown to impact workplace disability, but research in this area has waned in recent years despite an aging workforce, a growing prevalence of chronic health conditions, and a larger proportion of working-age adults on permanent work disability in many jurisdictions. The purpose of this article is to describe the background rationale and methodology for an invited conference designed to improve research of employer strategies to curtail work disability. Methods A multidisciplinary team of 26 international researchers with published research in employer-based disability management or related fields were invited to attend a 3-day conference in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA. The overall goal was to review the status of current research of workplace disability management and prevention, examine its relevance for employer decision-making, compare conceptual frameworks or theoretical perspectives, and recommend future research directions. Working groups were organized and draft manuscripts were prepared in advance. Conference activities included working group presentations and critiques, discussions with a panel of industry consultants and advisors, group interaction and debate, generation of final recommendations, and manuscript revision. Results/Conclusion Six principal domains were established with respect to future research: (a) further elucidation of the key workplace factors that buffer the disabling effects of injury and illness; (b) more innovative and feasible options for workplace intervention; (c) measurement of workplace-relevant disability outcomes; (d) a stronger theoretical framework for understanding the factors behind employer uptake and implementation; (e) a focus on special clinical populations and occupations where disability risk is most troubling; and (f) better representation of workers and employers that reflect the diverse and changing nature of work. Final comments and recommendations of the working groups are presented in the following six articles in this special issue of the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. Conference attendees recommended changes in methodology, collaboration strategies, and theoretical perspectives to improve the practical and scientific impact of future research of employer practices.

Pain assessment in context: a state of the science review of the McGill pain questionnaire 40 years on.

The McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) and its later derivative the short form-MPQ have been used widely both in experimental and clinical pain studies. They have been of considerable importance in stimulating research into the perception of pain and now, with the publication of its latest variant, the short form-MPQ-2, it is appropriate to appraise their utility in the light of subsequent research into the nature of pain and the purpose of pain assessment. Following a description of the content and development of the questionnaires, issues of validity, reliability, and utility are addressed, not only in terms of the individual pain descriptors and the scales, but also in terms of methods of quantification. In addition, other methods of pain depiction are considered. In the second part of the review, advances in pain measurement and methodology, in the elucidation of pain mechanisms and pathways, in the psychology of pain, and in the nature of pain behavior are presented and their implications for pain assessment in general and the MPQ family of measures in particular will be addressed. It is suggested that pain assessment needs to be cast in its social context. We need to understand the influences on pain expression using a socio-communication model of pain that recognizes the function of pain and the importance of both innate pain responses and the effects of social learning. The review concludes with recommendations for future use of the MPQ and identifies a number of research challenges which lie ahead.