Do current methods of measuring the impact of chronic pain on work reflect the experience of working-age adults? An integrated mixed-methods systematic narrative review.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain affects individuals' work participation. The impact of chronic pain on work has historically been measured through sickness absence, though it is now appreciated that the impacts on work are far wider. This mixed-methods review aimed to identify the full range of impacts of pain on work in addition to impacts that are currently measured quantitatively to inform the development of a new questionnaire assessing the wider impacts of chronic pain on work. MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL were searched for studies that included quantitative measures of the impact of chronic pain on work and for qualitative studies where individuals described impacts of their chronic pain on work. Quantitative measures, and text from qualitative studies, were analysed thematically. A thematic framework was developed for establishing the types of impacts measured or described in the literature. Forty-four quantitative and 16 qualitative papers were identified. The literature described impacts within 5 areas: changes at work and to working status; aspects of the workplace and work relationships; pain and related symptoms at work; psychological factors; and factors and impacts outside the work environment related to work. Quantitative measures mainly assessed impacts related to the quantity and quality of work (29 of 42 measures). Seventeen aspects were only discussed within the qualitative literature. This study identifies a discrepancy between the impacts that have been the focus of quantitative measures and the range that individuals working with chronic pain experience and highlights the need for a new measure assessing a wider range of issues.

Enabling work participation for people with musculoskeletal conditions: lessons from work changes imposed by COVID-19: a mixed-method study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand what we can learn from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown about what enables work participation for people with inflammatory arthritis and chronic pain conditions. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews embedded within an observational questionnaire study of individuals with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. SETTING: UK primary care (general practices), and secondary care-based rheumatology services. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis and MSK pain from three established cohorts completed an online/paper-based questionnaire (July-December 2020). A subset of respondents were selected for semistructured interviews. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey quantified the effects of lockdown on work circumstances. Qualitative interviews explored the impacts of these changes and the advantages and disadvantages of changes in work circumstances. RESULTS: 491 people (52% female, median age 49 years) who were employed at the time of lockdown responded to the questionnaire. The qualitative analysis included 157 free-text comments on work from the questionnaire and data collected within 18 interviews.Participants reported impacts on mental and physical health, and significant financial anxieties. The impact of work changes varied depending on individual and home circumstances. Some felt forced to ignore advice to shield and continue working. The flexibility offered by home working and changes in commuting enabled greater physical activity for some, while others missed the exercise normally undertaken as part of their commute. Others reported a constant need to be 'present' online, which heightened anxiety and worsened MSK symptoms. CONCLUSION: Lockdown showed that flexible working arrangements, which consider the positive and negative aspects of commuting, posture, movement, and work environment matter for work participation, and can have wider benefits in terms of health and well-being for those with long-term MSK conditions. Incorporating these into new models of work will help make the workplace more equitable and inclusive for people with long-term MSK conditions.

Lessons from experiences of accessing healthcare during the pandemic for remobilizing rheumatology services: a national mixed methods study.

Objectives: To understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on access to healthcare services for patients with inflammatory and non-inflammatory musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Methods: Three established cohorts that included individuals with axial SpA, psoriatic arthritis and MSK pain completed a questionnaire between July and December 2020. In parallel, a subset of individuals participated in semistructured interviews. Results: A total of 1054 people (45% female, median age 59 years) were included in the quantitative analyses. Qualitative data included 447 free-text questionnaire responses and 23 interviews. A total of 57% of respondents had tried to access care since the start of the UK national lockdown. More than a quarter reported being unable to book any type of healthcare appointment. General practice appointments were less likely to be delayed or cancelled compared with hospital appointments. Younger age, unemployment/health-related retirement, DMARD therapy, anxiety or depression and being extremely clinically vulnerable were associated with a greater likelihood of attempting to access healthcare. People not in work, those reporting anxiety or depression and poorer quality of life were less likely to be satisfied with remotely delivered healthcare. Participants valued clear, timely and transparent care pathways across primary care and specialist services. While remote consultations were convenient for some, in-person appointments enabled physical assessment and facilitated the development and maintenance of clinical relationships with care providers. Conclusions: We identified patient factors that predict access to and satisfaction with care and aspects of care that patients value. This is important to inform remobilisation of rheumatology services to better meet the needs of patients.

Driving Difficulties in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis: Results From the Scotland Registry for Ankylosing Spondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the driving difficulties experienced by individuals with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), and to characterize associated clinical and sociodemographic features and impact on work. METHODS: The Scotland Registry for Ankylosing Spondylitis (SIRAS) is a cohort study of patients with a clinical diagnosis of axial SpA. Baseline information was collected on clinical and patient-reported measures and work participation measures (using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem [WPAI:SHP]). Patient-rated difficulties with 9 driving tasks were used in a factor analysis, and relationships between driving difficulty and work participation were investigated. RESULTS: In total, 718 patients provided data for analysis, of which 642 (89%) had some difficulty with at least 1 driving task, and 72 (10%) had some difficulty with all 9 tasks. Three domains of driving difficulty were identified: dynamic driving scenarios, crossing traffic, and the physical act of driving. Chronic widespread pain, knee and back pain, fatigue, high disease activity, and anxiety/depression were significantly associated with reporting driving difficulties across all 3 domains, particularly the physical act of driving. After adjusting for sociodemographic, disease activity, physical and mental health, driving difficulties in each domain were associated with a 2-3 times increased likelihood of restricted work productivity and with an increased risk of sickness absence in the past 7 days. CONCLUSION: Driving difficulties are common in individuals with axial SpA and impact on work, even after adjusting for clinical status. Improving understanding and awareness of driving disability will help direct advice and resources to enable individuals to remain independent and economically active.

Illness perceptions and illness behaviours in back pain: A cross-sectional cluster analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals' perceptions of back pain may shape what they do in response to manage their pain, for example, self-care, medication and seeking healthcare. Illness perceptions encompass a variety of beliefs such as how long pain is expected to last and whether treatments are perceived to control pain. Whether these beliefs meaningfully cluster and whether these clusters are associated with how people manage their back pain are currently unknown. METHODS: 1,343 individuals with back pain from a general population sample completed the brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire and measures about their pain and illness behaviours. Using a two-stage cluster analysis, we identified four distinct clusters of individuals. Logistic regression was used to investigate relationships between cluster membership and illness behaviours. RESULTS: After adjustment for socio-demographic characteristics, pain severity, interference and duration, relative to a low threat illness perception cluster, a high threat cluster was more likely to have contacted a general practitioner (OR: 3.03, 95% CI: 1.75, 5.23) and a moderate threat-high treatment control cluster was more likely to have consulted a physical therapist (OR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.26, 3.87). Both the moderate threat-high treatment control cluster and high threat cluster were also less likely to have reported self-care (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.95; OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The cluster analysis provided a meaningful classification of individuals based on their cognitive illness perceptions of their back pain, as these clusters were associated with different illness behaviours. Interventions which modify clusters of illness perceptions may be effective in influencing how individuals respond to back pain. SIGNIFICANCE: Within a general population setting, we identified four clearly distinct groups of people based on the perceptions they held about their back pain. These groupings seemed to reflect meaningful characterisations as they differed based on the characteristics of their pain (e.g., severity and duration) and, after adjustment for these characteristics, were associated with different ways of managing pain. Interventions which focus on targeting the sets of illness perceptions that people hold may be effective in influencing how individuals manage back pain.

The effect of COVID-19 public health restrictions on the health of people with musculoskeletal conditions and symptoms: the CONTAIN study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the change in quality of life, disease-specific indicators, health and lifestyle before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among people with musculoskeletal diagnoses and symptoms. METHODS: We undertook an additional follow-up of two existing UK registers involving people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and participants in a trial in the UK who had regional pain and were identified at high risk of developing chronic widespread pain. Participants completed the study questionnaire between July and December 2020, throughout which time there were public health restrictions in place. RESULTS: The number of people taking part in the study was 1054 (596 axSpA, 162 PsA, 296 regional pain). In comparison with their previous (pre-pandemic) assessment, there was an age-adjusted significant, small decrease in quality of life measured by EQ-5D [-0.020 (95% CI -0.030, -0.009)] overall and across all population groups examined. This was primarily related to poorer mental health and pain. There was a small increase in fibromyalgia symptoms, but a small decrease in sleep problems. There was a small deterioration in axSpA disease activity, and disease-specific quality of life and anxiety in PsA participants. Predictors of poor quality of life were similar pre- and during the pandemic. The effect of lockdown on activity differed according to age, gender and deprivation. CONCLUSION: Important lessons include focusing on addressing anxiety and providing enhanced support for self-management in the absence of normal health care being available, and awareness that all population groups are likely to be affected.

Negotiating explanations: doctor-patient communication with patients with medically unexplained symptoms-a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) seek explanations for their symptoms, but often find general practitioners (GPs) unable to deliver these. Different methods of explaining MUPS have been proposed. Little is known about how communication evolves around these explanations. OBJECTIVE: To examine the dialogue between GPs and patients related to explanations in a community-based clinic for MUPS. We categorized dialogue types and dialogue outcomes. METHODS: Patients were ≥18 years with inclusion criteria for moderate MUPS: ≥2 referrals to specialists, ≥1 functional syndrome/symptoms, ≥10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 and GP's judgement that symptoms were unexplained. We analysed transcripts of 112 audio-recorded consultations (39 patients and 5 GPs) from two studies on the Symptoms Clinic Intervention, a consultation intervention for MUPS in primary care. We used constant comparative analysis to code and classify dialogue types and outcomes. RESULTS: We extracted 115 explanation sequences. We identified four dialogue types, differing in the extent to which the GP or patient controlled the dialogue. We categorized eight outcomes of the sequences, ranging from acceptance to rejection by the patient. The most common outcome was holding (conversation suspended in an unresolved state), followed by acceptance. Few explanations were rejected by the patient. Co-created explanations by patient and GP were most likely to be accepted. CONCLUSION: We developed a classification of dialogue types and outcomes in relation to explanations offered by GPs for MUPS patients. While it requires further validation, it provides a framework, which can be used for teaching, evaluation of practice and research.

A taxonomy of explanations in a general practitioner clinic for patients with persistent "medically unexplained" physical symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a taxonomy of explanations for patients with persistent physical symptoms. METHODS: We analysed doctors' explanations from two studies of a moderately-intensive consultation intervention for patients with multiple, often "medically-unexplained," physical symptoms. We used a constant comparative method to develop a taxonomy which was then applied to all verbatim explanations. RESULTS: We analysed 138 explanations provided by five general practitioners to 38 patients. The taxonomy comprised explanation types and explanation components. Three explanation types described the overall structure of the explanations: Rational Adaptive, Automatic Adaptive, and Complex. These differed in terms of who or what was given agency within the explanation. Three explanation components described the content of the explanation: Facts - generic statements about normal or dysfunctional processes; Causes - person-specific statements about proximal or distal causes for symptoms; Mechanisms - processes by which symptoms arise or persist in the individual. Most explanations conformed to one type and contained several components. CONCLUSIONS: This novel taxonomy for classifying clinical explanations permits detailed classification of explanation types and content. Explanation types appear to carry different implications of agency. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The taxonomy is suitable for examining explanations and developing prototype explanatory scripts in both training and research settings.

Developmental study of treatment fidelity, safety and acceptability of a Symptoms Clinic intervention delivered by General Practitioners to patients with multiple medically unexplained symptoms.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for primary care interventions for patients with multiple medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). We examined whether GPs could be taught to deliver one such intervention, the Symptoms Clinic Intervention (SCI), to patients. The intervention includes recognition and validation of patients' symptoms, explanation of symptoms and actions to manage symptoms. METHODS: We conducted an uncontrolled observational study in Northeast Scotland. GPs were recruited and received two days of structured training. Patients were identified via a two stage process (database searching followed by postal questionnaire) and received the SCI intervention from a GP in their practice. Treatment fidelity was assessed by applying a coding framework to consultation transcripts. Safety was assessed by examining changes in patient symptoms (PHQ-15) and checking for unexpected events. Acceptability was primarily assessed by patient interview. RESULTS: Four GPs delivered the SCI to 23 patients. GPs delivered all core components of the SCI, and used the components flexibly across the consultations and between patients. They spent more time on recognition than either explanation or actions components. 10 out of 17 patients interviewed described feeling validated, receiving useful explanation and learning actions. 9 out of 20 patients (45%) reported an improvement in PHQ-15 of between 3 and 8 points. Patients who reported the most improvement also described receiving all three components of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: GPs can be taught to deliver the SCI with reasonable fidelity, safety and acceptability, although some items were inconsistently delivered: further training would be needed before use.