Gastrointestinal pain: A systematic review of temporal summation of pain paradigms and outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Since targeted treatment for gastrointestinal pain is elusive, identifying the mechanistic underpinning of this pain type is important. Facilitation of spinal neuronal responses underpins certain pain types, and the psychophysical temporal summation of pain (TSP) paradigm provides a proxy measure of spinal facilitatory processes. Our aim was to systematically review whether facilitated TSP is a feature of gastrointestinal pain in patients with, or pain-free people experiencing experimentally induced, gastrointestinal pain. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched, from inception to July 2023, for human studies reporting TSP paradigm outcomes in the context of gastrointestinal pain. The Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional studies was used for quality assessment and applied independently by two researchers. RESULTS: Fifteen papers consisting of cross-sectional (n = 6), case-control (n = 8), and retrospective cohort (n = 1) studies, were included. Thirteen studies investigated TSP in people with gastrointestinal pain with (n = 5) or without (n = 8) defined pathology. Two studies evoked TSP by repetitive gut stimulation in people undergoing abdominal medical procedures. Preliminary evidence showed that facilitated TSP correlated with the presence of functional gastrointestinal pain in women, and those with a history of trauma. No effect was observed in people with inflammatory bowel disease, although it was often unclear if they experienced pain. CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to conclude whether facilitated TSP is a feature of gastrointestinal pain. We recommend that subgroup findings are corroborated and that TSP paradigms are standardized in order that direct comparisons between studies may be made. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Evidence indicated that pain facilitatory processes, as evidenced by a facilitated TSP outcome, contribute to functional gastrointestinal pain in women and those with a history of trauma. However, heterogeneity of study populations and paradigms precluded statistical synthesis and findings would need be corroborated. Studies exploring facilitatory processes in people with inflammatory bowel diseases did not report significant results, but pain is not a given in these conditions and, conversely, may be driven by peripheral inflammation during active disease. This should be taken in consideration in future explorations. REGISTRATION REVIEW: PROSPERO CRD42022341845.

'Symptom-free' when inflammatory bowel disease is in remission: Expectations raised by online resources.

OBJECTIVES: Up to 60% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experience symptoms when in remission. Qualitative research suggests patients seldom feel they receive adequate explanations for these. This study explores how, and how often, ongoing symptoms during remission are represented on readily searchable patient websites. METHODS: Bing, Google, and Yahoo were searched for websites providing medical information about IBD. Thematic analysis was used to inductively explore themes around symptoms during quiescent IBD, followed by deductive content analysis to quantify core themes. RESULTS: Results indicated that remission is commonly defined as "few or no symptoms" and that there is limited information available on symptoms during remission. 55.6% of IBD websites provided a definition of remission based on symptom control only, while 44.4% also incorporated inflammatory control. The few websites that mentioned that symptoms may continue during remission (21.7%) related these to IBS. CONCLUSIONS: Current website information is predominantly biomedical and fails to adequately explain how symptoms may persist during remission and how IBS and IBD may be linked. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Lack of explanatory models of symptoms in remission may lead to distress and increase anxiety about symptoms. Clearer explanations of these symptoms are needed.

What happens under the flag of direct observation, and how that matters: A qualitative study in general practice residency.

INTRODUCTION: In competency-based medical education, direct observation (DO) of residents' skills is scarce, notwithstanding its undisputed importance for credible feedback and assessment. A growing body of research is investigating this discrepancy. Strikingly, in this research, DO as a concrete educational activity tends to remain vague. In this study, we concretised DO of technical skills in postgraduate longitudinal training relationships. METHODS: Informed by constructivist grounded theory, we performed a focus group study among general practice residents. We asked residents about their experiences with different manifestations of DO of technical skills. A framework describing different DO patterns with their varied impact on learning and the training relationship was constructed and refined until theoretical sufficiency was reached. RESULTS: The dominant DO pattern was ad hoc, one-way DO. Importantly, in this pattern, various unpredictable, and sometimes unwanted, scenarios could occur. Residents hesitated to discuss unwanted scenarios with their supervisors, sometimes instead refraining from future requests for DO or even for help. Planned bi-directional DO sessions, though seldom practiced, contributed much to collaborative learning in a psychologically safe training relationship. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Patterns matter in DO. Residents and supervisors should be made aware of this and educated in maintaining an open dialogue on how to use DO for the benefit of learning and the training relationship.

Patterns of direct observation and their impact during residency: general practice supervisors' views.

CONTEXT: Direct observation (DO) of residents' performance, despite the importance that is ascribed to it, does not readily fit in with the practice of postgraduate medical education (PGME); it is infrequent and the quality of observation may be poor in spite of ongoing efforts towards improvement. In recent literature, DO is mostly portrayed as a means to gather information on the performance of residents for purposes of feedback and assessment. The role of DO in PGME is likely to be more complex and poorly understood in the era of outcome-based education. By exploring the possible complexity of DO in workplace learning, our research aims to contribute to a better use of DO in the practice of PGME. METHODS: Constructivist grounded theory informed our data collection and analysis. Data collection involved focus group sessions with supervisors in Dutch general practice who were invited to discuss the manifestations, meanings and effects of DO of technical skills. Theoretical sufficiency was achieved after four focus groups, with a total of 28 participants being included. RESULTS: We found four patterns of DO of technical skills: initial planned DO sessions; resident-initiated ad hoc DO; supervisor-initiated ad hoc DO, and continued planned DO sessions. Different patterns of DO related to varying meanings, such as checking or trusting, and effects, such as learning a new skill or experiencing emotional discomfort, all of them concerning the training relationship, patient safety or residents' learning. CONCLUSIONS: Direct observation, to supervisors, means much more than gathering information for purposes of feedback and assessment. Planned DO sessions are an important routine during the initiation phase of a training relationship. Continued planned bidirectional DO sessions, although infrequently practised, potentially combine most benefits with least side-effects of DO. Ad hoc DO, although much relied upon, is often hampered by internal tensions in supervisors, residents or both.

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.

Recognition of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms by family physicians: results of a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) form a heterogeneous group and frequently attend their family physician (FP). Little is known about how FPs recognize MUPS in their patients. We conducted a focus group study to explore how FPs recognize MUPS and whether they recognize specific subgroups of patients with MUPS. Targeting such subgroups might improve treatment outcomes. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted with in total 29 Dutch FPs. Two researchers independently analysed the data applying the principles of constant comparative analysis in order to detect characteristics to recognize MUPS and to synthesize subgroups. RESULTS: FPs take into account various characteristics when recognizing MUPS in their patients. More objective characteristics were multiple MUPS, frequent and long consultations and many referrals. Subjective characteristics were negative feelings towards patients and the feeling that the FP cannot make sense of the patient's story. Experience of the FP, affinity with MUPS, consultation skills, knowledge of the patient's context and the doctor-patient relationship seemed to influence how and to what extent these characteristics play a role. Based on the perceptions of the FPs we were able to distinguish five subgroups of patients according to FPs: 1) the anxious MUPS patient, 2) the unhappy MUPS patient, 3) the passive MUPS patient, 4) the distressed MUPS patient, and 5) the puzzled MUPS patient. These subgroups were not mutually exclusive, but were based on how explicit and predominant certain characteristics were perceived by FPs. CONCLUSIONS: FPs believe that they can properly identify MUPS in their patients during consultations and five distinct subgroups of patients could be distinguished. If these subgroups can be confirmed in further research, personalized treatment strategies can be developed and tested for their effectiveness.

Processing speed in recurrent visual networks correlates with general intelligence.

Studies on the neural basis of general fluid intelligence strongly suggest that a smarter brain processes information faster. Different brain areas, however, are interconnected by both feedforward and feedback projections. Whether both types of connections or only one of the two types are faster in smarter brains remains unclear. Here we show, by measuring visual evoked potentials during a texture discrimination task, that general fluid intelligence shows a strong correlation with processing speed in recurrent visual networks, while there is no correlation with speed of feedforward connections. The hypothesis that a smarter brain runs faster may need to be refined: a smarter brain's feedback connections run faster.