Pain self-management training increases self-efficacy, self-management behaviours and pain and depression outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Self-management practices among patients with medical and psychiatric comorbidity is not well understood. We assessed the effects of a combined pharmacological and behavioural intervention on self-efficacy to manage symptoms and self-management behaviours in patients with pain and comorbid depression. METHODS: Longitudinal analysis of self-management behaviours and their relationship with outcomes in a 12-month trial of 250 primary care patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depression. Participants were randomized to either usual care or an intervention that consisted of optimized antidepressant therapy followed by six sessions of a pain self-management (PSM) programme. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention group significantly increased the time spent performing self-management behaviours including strengthening and stretching exercises, progressive muscle relaxation and visualization at 12 months. Moreover, intervention participants reported greater self-efficacy to manage their pain and depression. The number of pain self-management sessions received showed a dose-response relationship with improvement in both pain and depression severity. CONCLUSION: A combined intervention increased patient self-management behaviours and self-efficacy to manage symptoms among primary care patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression. Receipt of the full dose of the entire PSM programme was related to improvements in pain interference and depression severity. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?: A nurse-led six-session PSM programme increased self-efficacy as well as specific behaviours such as strengthening and stretching exercises, progressive muscle relaxation and visualization. There was a dose-response in that attending a greater proportion of the PSM sessions led to greater improvement in both pain and depression outcomes.

The influence of patient's sex, race and depression on clinician pain treatment decisions.

BACKGROUND: Pain treatments often vary across patients' demographic and mental health characteristics. Most research on this topic has been observational, has focused on opioid therapy exclusively and has not examined individual differences in clinician decision making. The current study examined the influence of patient's sex, race and depression on clinicians' chronic pain treatment decisions. METHODS: We used virtual human technology and lens model methodology to enhance study realism and facilitate a richer understanding of treatment decisions. Clinicians and trainees (n = 100) made treatment decisions (opioid, antidepressant, pain specialty referral, mental health referral) for 16 computer-simulated patients with chronic low back pain. Patients' sex, race and depression status were manipulated across vignettes (image and text). RESULTS: Individual- and group-level analyses indicated that patient's depression status had the strongest and most consistent influence on treatment decisions. Although less influential overall, patient's sex and race were significantly influential for a subset of participants. Furthermore, the results indicated that participants who were influenced by patient's race had less experience in treating chronic pain than those who were not influenced by patient's race [t(11.59) = 4.75; p = 0.001; d = 1.20]. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicated considerable variability in participants' chronic pain treatment decisions. These data suggest that interventions to reduce variability in treatment decision making and improve pain care should be individually tailored according to clinicians' decision profiles.

Poststroke depression and treatment effects on functional outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Poststroke depression (PSD) is common after stroke; however, the relationship to poststroke function is inconclusive. Our objectives were to 1) determine the relationship between PSD at baseline (1 month poststroke) and function (12 weeks later) and 2) assess the impact of depression improvement on 12-week function among those with depression at baseline. METHODS: We completed a secondary analysis of data from a cohort study of participants with and without PSD. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with 12-week functional dependence for 1) all 367 participants and 2) the 174 participants with PSD. RESULTS: In the PSD cohort, 3 characteristics were found to be independently associated with 12-week dependence: increased medical comorbidity (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95%confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.22), increased stroke severity (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.19-1.69), and increased baseline depression severity (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.23). Depression severity was significantly different between those considered dependent and independent at 12 weeks (entire cohort, PHQ-9 7.31 vs 5.18, p = 0.008; depressed cohort, PHQ-9 9.94 vs 7.27, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Among study participants with PSD, the severity of depression symptoms at baseline was associated with dependence; however, our results are inconclusive as to whether improvement of depression is independently associated with functional recovery at 12 weeks. Even if the treatment and improvement of PSD does not directly influence functional recovery poststroke, it is essential for PSD to be identified and treated due to its high symptom burden and association with other negative health and social outcomes.

Prevalence of pain and association with quality of life, depression and glycaemic control in patients with diabetes.

AIMS: To determine the prevalence of pain and its association with glycaemic control, mental health and physical functioning in patients with diabetes. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from a multi-site, prospective cohort study of 11 689 participants with diabetes. We analysed the associations of pain severity and interference with glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) measurements and Medical Outcomes Study SF-Mental and Physical Component Summary-12 (MCS-12 and PCS-12) scores. RESULTS: Of participants, 57.8% reported moderate to extreme pain and, compared with those without pain, were somewhat older (60.8 vs. 59.9 years, P < 0.001), more obese (body mass index of 32.1 vs. 29.8 kg/m(2), P < 0.001), more likely to report being depressed or anxious (41.3 vs. 16.2%, P < 0.001) and more likely to report fair or poor health (48.5 vs. 23.1%, P < 0.001). Bivariate comparisons demonstrated that patients with extreme pain had higher HbA(1c) than those without pain (8.3 vs. 8.0%, P = 0.001). In multivariable analyses, pain was not associated with HbA(1c) (P = 0.304) but was strongly associated with worse MCS-12 (P < 0.001), PCS-12 (P < 0.001) and depression (P < 0.001). Depression was 1.3 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.96) times more likely in patients with moderate pain and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.56, 2.46) times more likely in patients with extreme pain. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to extreme pain was present in 57.8% of diabetic patients. Pain was strongly associated with poorer mental health and physical functioning, but not worse glycaemic control. Recognizing the high prevalence of pain and its strong association with poorer health-related quality of life may be important to improve the comprehensive management of diabetes.

Outcomes of newly referred neurology outpatients with depression and pain.

BACKGROUND: Although depression and pain are common in neurology outpatients, patient factors influencing chronicity are poorly understood. The authors sought to determine the predictors of persistent depression and pain symptoms at 3 and 12 months after an initial outpatient neurology clinic visit. METHODS: Consecutive new patients (n = 483) at three clinics completed the Patient Health Questionnaire nine-item depression scale and the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and at 3- and 12-month follow-up. Multivariate analysis was used to model 3- and 12-month depression and pain severity. RESULTS: The prevalence of depression and pain at baseline/3/12 months was depression 33%/28%/27% and pain 66%/61%/62%. Independent predictors of depression severity at follow-up were more severe depression and pain at baseline and less improvement in pain (model r(2) = 0.53 to 0.56). Independent predictors of pain intensity at follow-up were more severe pain and depression at baseline and less improvement in depression (model r(2) = 0.44 to 0.46). Health care utilization and impairments in health status were greatest in patients with coexisting depression and pain and least in those with neither depression nor pain. CONCLUSIONS: Depression and pain symptoms in neurology outpatients often persist for at least 12 months and have long-term negative effects on patients' health status. Pain is more likely to persist in patients with depression, and depression is more likely to persist in those with coexistent pain.

Prevalence and impact of depression and pain in neurology outpatients.

BACKGROUND: We examined the prevalence and health related quality of life (HRQoL) of depression and/or pain in neurology outpatients. METHODS: Patients at outpatient clinics completed depression, pain, and HRQoL scales. Group comparisons between those with pain alone, depression alone, both conditions, and neither condition were done. RESULTS: Overall, pain was present in 2/3 and depression in 1/3 of patients. Pain with depression was present in 25%; 75% of depressed patients had pain. These conditions had significant negative impact on mental and physical health status scores. The odds ratio (OR) for having pain was significantly increased in women (OR 2.0), those with depression (OR 2.4), and those with neuropathy/neuromuscular (OR 3.8) or pain syndromes (OR 4.8). The odds of having depression were increased in those with pain (OR 2.4) and with cognitive (OR 4.8) or cerebrovascular (OR 3.3) diagnoses. Neurologists were more likely to recognise and treat pain than depression. CONCLUSIONS: Depression and pain are common in newly referred neurology outpatients and have substantial negative effects on patients' physical and mental health. Pain is more likely than depression to be recognised and treated by neurologists.

Similar effectiveness of paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline in primary care: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressant, yet it is not known whether one SSRI is more effective than another. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 3 SSRIs (paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline) in depressed primary care patients. DESIGN: Open-label, randomized, intention-to-treat trial, with patient enrollment occurring in April-November 1999. SETTING: Thirty-seven clinics in 2 US primary care research networks. PATIENTS: A total of 573 depressed adult patients for whom their primary care physician thought that antidepressant therapy was warranted and who completed a baseline interview. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive paroxetine (n = 189), fluoxetine (n = 193), or sertraline (n = 191) for 9 months. Primary care physicians were allowed to switch patients to a different SSRI or non-SSRI antidepressant if they did not adequately respond to or tolerate the initial SSRI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was change in the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Mental Component Summary score (range, 0-100), compared across treatment groups at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. Secondary outcomes included other depression and psychological measures, multiple measures of social and work functioning, and other domains of health-related quality of life, such as physical functioning, concentration and memory, vitality, bodily pain, sleep, and sexual functioning. RESULTS: Follow-up interviews were successfully completed in 94% of patients at 1 month, 87% at 3 months, 84% at 6 months, and 79% at 9 months. Responses to the 3 SSRIs were comparable on all measures and at all time points. The mean change in the SF-36 Mental Component Summary score at 9 months was + 15.8 in the paroxetine group, + 15.1 in the fluoxetine group, and + 17.4 in the sertraline group. The drugs were also associated with similar incidences of adverse effects and discontinuation rates. CONCLUSIONS: The SSRI antidepressants paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline were similar in effectiveness for depressive symptoms as well as multiple domains of health-related quality of life over the entire 9 months of this trial.

The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

OBJECTIVE: While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity. MEASUREMENTS: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "0" (not at all) to "3" (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. RESULTS: As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score > or =10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. CONCLUSION: In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.

Validation and utility of the patient health questionnaire in diagnosing mental disorders in 1003 general hospital Spanish inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Spanish version of the patient health questionnaire (PHQ) has validity and utility for diagnosing mental disorders in general hospital inpatients. METHODS: Participants in the study were 1003 general hospital inpatients, randomly selected from all admissions over an 18-month period. All of them completed the PHQ, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and measures of functional status, disability days, and health care use, including length of hospital stay. They also had a structured interview with a mental health professional. RESULTS: A total of 416 (42%) of the 1003 general hospital inpatients had a PHQ diagnosis. There was good agreement between PHQ diagnoses and those of an independent mental health professional (for the diagnosis of any PHQ disorder, kappa = 0.74; overall accuracy, 88%; sensitivity, 87%; specificity, 88%), similar to the original English version of the PHQ in primary care patients. Patients with PHQ diagnoses had more functional impairment, disability days, and health care use than did patients without PHQ diagnoses (group main effects for functional status measures and disability days, p < .001; group main effects for health care use, p < .01). The group main effect for hospital length of stay was not significant. An index of depression symptom severity calculated from the PHQ correlated significantly both with the number of depressive symptoms detected at interview and the total BDI score. PHQ administration was well accepted by patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish version of the PHQ has diagnostic validity in general hospital inpatients comparable to the original English version in primary care.

Studying symptoms: sampling and measurement issues.

Physical symptoms account for more than half of all outpatient visits, but the specific causes and treatments of many common symptoms are frequently not well established. Because clinical research has primarily targeted specific diseases, symptoms-based research is still an emerging field of scientific inquiry, and optimal methods are still being developed. This paper considers eight important issues in sampling and measurement. First, recognition of the exceptionally high base rates of many symptoms is an essential primary step in selecting appropriate case-patients and controls. Second, the type of population studied (community, primary care clinic, subspecialty clinic, or symptom clinic) can greatly influence the severity and other characteristics of the symptom being evaluated. Third, symptom detection relies on three types of symptoms: documented, elicited, and volunteered. Fourth, temporal factors include recency of onset, episodicity, and duration. Fifth, severity can be assessed with single- or multiple-item symptom-specific scales as well as evaluation of generic functional status and health-related quality-of- life measures. Sixth, recognition of a symptom's cause can be strengthened by explicit criteria, uniform assessment protocols, and multiple raters. Seventh, comorbidity that should be assessed includes medical disorders, psychiatric disorders, and other symptoms. And eighth, since death and serious illness are uncommon, alternative outcomes that might be measured include symptom alleviation, health-related quality of life, patient and provider satisfaction, and health care costs.

The effect of unmet expectations among adults presenting with physical symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Unmet patient expectations are common and have been associated with decreased patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and effect of unmet expectations in patients presenting with physical symptoms. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care walk-in clinic. Most patients were seeing a particular provider for the first time. PATIENTS: 750 adults whose principal reason for the clinic visit was a physical symptom. MEASUREMENTS: Patients completed previsit questionnaires that assessed symptom characteristics, the patient's expectations of the visit, functional status (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-6), and mental disorders (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders [PRIME-MD]). Patient questionnaires given immediately after the visit and 2 weeks after the visit assessed patient satisfaction with the visit and unmet expectations; the 2-week questionnaire also assessed symptom outcome and functional status. Postvisit physician questionnaires measured encounter difficulty (Difficult Doctor Patient Relationship Questionnaire) and what the physician did in response to the patient's symptom. RESULTS: Nearly all patients (98%) had at least one previsit expectation, including a diagnosis (81%), an estimate of how long the symptom was likely to last (63%), a prescription (60%), a diagnostic test (54%), and a subspecialty referral (45%). Immediately after the visit, the most common unmet expectations were for prognostic information (51%) or diagnostic information (33%). Only 11% of patients had an unmet expectation of a diagnostic test, subspecialty referral, prescription, or sick slip. Unmet patient expectations were more common after encounters experienced as difficult by the clinician and in patients with underlying mental disorders. Patients with no unmet expectations had less worry about serious illness (54% vs. 27%; P < 0.001) and greater satisfaction (59% vs. 19%; P < 0.001), and patients who reported receiving diagnostic or prognostic information were more likely to have symptom alleviation (relative risk, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.3]) and functional improvement (functional status score, 25 vs. 23; P = 0.01) at 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who seek care for physical symptoms and do not leave the encounter with an unmet expectation are more likely to be satisfied with their care and to have less worry about serious illness. Diagnostic and prognostic information are particularly valued by patients and may be associated with greater improvement in symptoms and functional status 2 weeks after the visit.

Predictors of patient satisfaction.

Correlates of patient satisfaction at varying points in time were assessed using a survey with 2-week and 3-month follow-up in a general medicine walk-in clinic, in USA. Five hundred adults presenting with a physical symptom, seen by one of 38 participating clinicians were surveyed and the following measurements were taken into account: patient symptom characteristics, symptom-related expectations, functional status (Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey [SF-6]), mental disorders (PRIME-MD), symptom resolution, unmet expectations, satisfaction (RAND 9-item survey), visit costs and health utilization. Physician perception of difficulty (Difficult Doctor Patient Relationship Questionnaire), and Physician Belief Scale. Immediately after the visit, 260 (52%) patients were fully satisfied with their care, increasing to 59% at 2 weeks and 63% by 3 months. Patients older than 65 and those with better functional status were more likely to be satisfied. At all time points, the presence of unmet expectations markedly decreased satisfaction: immediately post-visit (OR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.07-0.30), 2-week (OR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04-0.13) and 3-month (OR: 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03-0.09). Other independent variables predicting immediate after visit satisfaction included receiving an explanation of the likely cause as well as expected duration of the presenting symptom. At 2 weeks and 3 months, experiencing symptomatic improvement increased satisfaction while additional visits (actual or anticipated) for the same symptom decreased satisfaction. A lack of unmet expectations was a powerful predictor of satisfaction at all time-points. Immediately post-visit, other predictors of satisfaction reflected aspects of patient doctor communication (receiving an explanation of the symptom cause, likely duration, lack of unmet expectations), while 2-week and 3-month satisfaction reflected aspects of symptom outcome (symptom resolution, need for repeat visits, functional status). Patient satisfaction surveys need to carefully consider the sampling time frame as well as adjust for pertinent patient characteristics.

Visit-specific expectations and patient-centered outcomes: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care patients often have certain expectations when visiting physicians, many of which may be undetected. These unmet expectations can affect outcomes such as satisfaction with care. We performed a formal literature review to examine the effect of fulfillment of patients' visit-specific expectations on their satisfaction as well as on health status and compliance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Included studies were conducted in primary care settings, systematically recruited patients, elicited previsit and/or postvisit expectations relative to specific visits, and measured patient-centered outcomes. Two reviewers abstracted information on study characteristics; types, timing, and method of expectation ascertainment; and outcomes. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were reviewed including 7 trials, 4 cohort studies, and 12 cross-sectional studies. Patients frequently expected information rather than specific physician actions, but physicians often did not accurately perceive patients' visit-specific expectations. In 19 studies that assessed postvisit patient satisfaction, a positive association between meeting patient expectations and overall satisfaction was demonstrated in 11 studies, inconclusive in 3, and not established in 5. In 2 studies assessing physician satisfaction, physicians with access to patients' expectations were more satisfied than those without access. Other outcomes (symptom or disease improvement, health status, test ordering, health care costs, psychological symptoms) were measured in only a few studies, and the results were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing patients' visit-specific expectations appears to affect satisfaction to a modest degree. Future studies should evaluate methods that efficiently elicit, prioritize, and provide patients' previsit expectations for physicians and should examine the longitudinal effect of expectation fulfillment on patient outcomes. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1148-1155

Treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders with antidepressant medications: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders are common, accounting for up to 50% of gastroenterology referrals, and several randomized controlled trials have evaluated antidepressant therapy for their treatment. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of published, English-language, randomized clinical trials on the use of antidepressants for the treatment of patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders. RESULTS: Twelve randomized placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders were identified. One was excluded for using a combination of a tricyclic and neuroleptic agent. The medications included tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline [n = 3], clomipramine [n = 1], desipramine [n = 2], doxepin [n = 1], and trimipramine [n = 2]), and the antiserotonin agent, mianserin (n = 2). In addition, one trial compared two different antidepressants (mianserin and clomipramine) with placebo. Data were abstracted for the dichotomous outcome of symptom improvement in seven studies, and for the continuous variable of pain score in eight studies. The summary odds ratio for improvement with antidepressant therapy was 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3 to 7.9), and the average standardized mean improvement in pain was equal to 0.9 SD units (95% CI: 0.6 to 1.2 SD units). On average 3.2 patients needed to be treated (95% CI: 2.1 to 6.5 patients) to improve 1 patient's symptom. CONCLUSION: Treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders with antidepressants appears to be effective. Whether this improvement is independent of an effect of treatment on depression needs further evaluation.

Treatment of fibromyalgia with antidepressants: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a common, poorly understood musculoskeletal pain syndrome with limited therapeutic options. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of fibromyalgia and examine whether this effect was independent of depression. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of English-language, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Studies were obtained from searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PSYCLIT (1966-1999), the Cochrane Library, unpublished literature, and bibliographies. We performed independent duplicate review of each study for both inclusion and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen randomized, placebo-controlled trials were identified, of which 13 were appropriate for data extraction. There were 3 classes of antidepressants evaluated: tricyclics (9 trials), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (3 trials), and S-adenosylmethionine (2 trials). Overall, the quality of the studies was good (mean score 5.6, scale 0-8). The odds ratio for improvement with therapy was 4.2 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.6 to 6.8). The pooled risk difference for these studies was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.16 to 0.34), which calculates to 4 (95% CI, 2.9 to 6.3) individuals needing treatment for 1 patient to experience symptom improvement. When the effect on individual symptoms was combined, antidepressants improved sleep, fatigue, pain, and well-being, but not trigger points. In the 5 studies where there was adequate assessment for an effect independent of depression, only 1 study found a correlation between symptom improvement and depression scores. Outcomes were not affected by class of agent or quality score using meta-regression. CONCLUSION: Antidepressants are efficacious in treating many of the symptoms of fibromyalgia. Patients were more than 4 times as likely to report overall improvement, and reported moderate reductions in individual symptoms, particularly pain. Whether this effect is independent of depression needs further study.

The depression in primary care tool kit.

OBJECTIVE: A tool kit was developed to help primary care physicians overcome some of the barriers to recognition and management of depression. METHOD: Tools were collected from a variety of sources, categorized by function, and evaluated on the basis of previously established criteria, with the best tools selected for inclusion in the tool kit. New tools were developed when an adequate tool for a desired function was not available. The tool kit was reviewed and then revised based on the feedback from eleven experts on depression in primary care, five medical directors from health care systems or managed care companies, and eighteen primary care physicians. All eighteen primary care physicians completed a questionnaire after reviewing the tool kit as part of the evaluation process. RESULTS: Only five of the eighteen physicians were using any kind of tool for depression prior to reviewing the tool kit. All eighteen physicians indicated that they were likely to use one or more of the components of the tool kit. On average, physicians indicated they were likely to use 6.5 of the ten types of tools included in the kit. CONCLUSIONS: A depression tool kit containing screening, diagnostic, management planning, and outcomes assessment questionnaires as well as treatment and counseling guidelines, information tables, flow charts, and patient education materials is likely to be well received by primary care physicians. However, its effectiveness may have as much to do with how its use is organized and implemented as it does with the intrinsic value of its components.