Features and methods to discriminate between mechanism-based categories of pain experienced in the musculoskeletal system: a Delphi expert consensus study.

ABSTRACT: Classification of musculoskeletal pain based on underlying pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain) is challenging. In the absence of a gold standard, verification of features that could aid in discrimination between these mechanisms in clinical practice and research depends on expert consensus. This Delphi expert consensus study aimed to: (1) identify features and assessment findings that are unique to a pain mechanism category or shared between no more than 2 categories and (2) develop a ranked list of candidate features that could potentially discriminate between pain mechanisms. A group of international experts were recruited based on their expertise in the field of pain. The Delphi process involved 2 rounds: round 1 assessed expert opinion on features that are unique to a pain mechanism category or shared between 2 (based on a 40% agreement threshold); and round 2 reviewed features that failed to reach consensus, evaluated additional features, and considered wording changes. Forty-nine international experts representing a wide range of disciplines participated. Consensus was reached for 196 of 292 features presented to the panel (clinical examination-134 features, quantitative sensory testing-34, imaging and diagnostic testing-14, and pain-type questionnaires-14). From the 196 features, consensus was reached for 76 features as unique to nociceptive (17), neuropathic (37), or nociplastic (22) pain mechanisms and 120 features as shared between pairs of pain mechanism categories (78 for neuropathic and nociplastic pain). This consensus study generated a list of potential candidate features that are likely to aid in discrimination between types of musculoskeletal pain.

Improvement in pain interference and function by an allied health pain management program: Results of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a significant health problem worldwide and requires a biopsychosocial treatment approach. Access to traditional pain medicine specialist services is limited and innovative treatment models are required to support patients in tertiary care. The study evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of the Treatment Access Pathway (TAP), an allied health expanded scope model of care which included innovative group assessment and collaboration with patients to create individualized treatment plans. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-one patients referred to a tertiary level chronic pain service were randomly allocated to either the TAP or the waitlist study groups. Primary (pain interference) and secondary outcome measures were collected at recruitment and again at 6 months. Per-protocol analyses were utilized due to high participant attrition (46% across groups). RESULTS: The TAP group reported greater reductions in pain interference at 6 months than waitlist group (0.9, 95% CI: 0.2-1.6), with more than half of the TAP group (52%) reporting clinically significant improvement. In addition, statistically significant differences between the TAP and waitlist groups were observed for objective measurements of walking endurance (5.4 m, 95% CI: 1.7-9.1); and global impressions of change (1.4 unit decrease, 95% CI: 1-1.9). Nil adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that an expanded scope allied health model of care prioritizing patient choice and group-based interventions provides modest benefits for tertiary-referral chronic pain patients. TAP warrants further investigation as a potentially viable alternative for tertiary healthcare where traditional pain services are unavailable or have long waiting lists. SIGNIFICANCE: The study tests effectiveness and safety of an expanded scope allied health-led chronic pain program. Despite a high attrition rate, the study showed reduced pain interference and increased physical function in those who completed the protocol. The results are promising and support introduction of this model as an adjunct to existing traditional chronic pain models of care, with a particular focus on improving participant retention in the program. Additionally, the model of care can be used as a standalone chronic pain model of care where no other pain management resources are available. The study was registered on ANZCTR (Trial ID: ACTRN12617001284358).

What do clinicians consider when assessing chronic low back pain? A content analysis of multidisciplinary pain centre team assessments of functioning, disability, and health.

Beyond expert suggestions as to the appropriate subject matter for chronic pain assessments, little is known about the actual content of multidisciplinary pain centre (MPC) clinical assessments. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Low Back Pain Core Set (ICF LBP-CS) provides a universal language to support the consistent description of LBP-related assessments across disciplines within multidisciplinary teams (MDTs). This study sought to map the content of MPC clinical assessments to the ICF to: (1) identify and compare the content of clinical MDT assessments using a cross-disciplinary framework and (2) examine the content validity of the LBP-CS. A qualitative examination of MPC team clinical assessments of chronic low back pain was undertaken. Multidisciplinary team (pain medicine, psychiatry, nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and psychology) assessments were audio-recorded and transcribed. Concepts were extracted from transcripts using a meaning condensation procedure and then linked to the ICF. Across 7 MDT assessments, comprised 42 discipline-specific assessments and 241,209 transcribed words, 8596 concepts were extracted. Contextual factors (ie, the person and environment), except for physiotherapy, accounted for almost half of each discipline's assessments (range: 49%-58%). Concepts spanned 113 second-level ICF categories, including 73/78 LBP-CS categories. Overall, the findings revealed novel insights into the content of MPC clinical assessments that can be used to improve health care delivery. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based assessment profiles demonstrated unique contributions from each discipline to chronic low back pain assessment. Finally, users of the LBP-CS can be confident that the tool exhibits sound content validity from the perceptive of MDT assessments of functioning, disability, and health.

Rasch analysis supported the construct validity of self-report measures of activity and participation derived from patient ratings of the ICF low back pain core set.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether measures of activity limitations and participation restrictions with sound internal construct validity could be derived from patient ratings of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Low Back Pain Core Set (LBP-CS). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The LBP-CS Self-Report Checklist (LBP-CS-SRC) was developed to permit patients to self-rate their functioning according to an extended set of activity and participation categories from the LBP-CS. Rasch analysis was used to examine the validity of the LBP-CS-SRC with a sample of 308 adults with chronic low back pain attending two tertiary-referral outpatient services in Brisbane, Australia. RESULTS: The activity limitations and participation restrictions qualifier scales functioned satisfactorily, and the LBP-CS-SRC person response validity was good. After deletion of six misfitting items, the dimensionality results supported using the instrument as distinct measures of activity limitations (17 items) and participation restrictions (10 items). The activity and participation measures both had good person separation reliability, and no component items exhibited meaningful differential item functioning. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that measures of activity and participation with sound internal construct validity can be derived from patient ratings of LBP-CS categories. The LBP-CS-SRC can be used in clinical practice and epidemiologic research to support understanding of patients' perspectives on functioning.

Self-reported disability according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Low Back Pain Core Set: Test-retest agreement and reliability.

BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Low Back Pain Core Set (LBP-CS) has been proposed as a tool to facilitate the description and measurement of chronic low back pain (CLBP) related disability. Patient ratings of ICF categories may serve as a practical and effective method for acquiring patient input on activity limitations and participation restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the test-retest agreement and reliability of patient ratings of activity and participation according to the LBP-CS. METHODS: A cross-sectional repeated-measures questionnaire study was undertaken with thirty-one medically stable adults with CLBP who presented for treatment at two public Australian hospitals. Participants completed the LBP-CS Self-Report Checklist (LBP-CS-SRC) on two occasions (mean = 12.5 (SD = 4.5) days between administrations). The LBP-CS-SRC permits patients to self-rate their functioning according to the LBP-CS activity and participation categories and enables the derivation of activity limitation and participation restriction scales. RESULTS: Patient ratings of individual LBP-CS categories generally exhibited good - excellent test-retest agreement (percentage exact agreement: 74.19-100.00%) and reliability (kappa: 0.53-1.00). The test-retest reliability coefficients of the LBP-CS-SRC activity (ICC = 0.94) and participation (ICC = 0.90) scales were excellent. The minimum detectable change values for the activity and participation scales were 8.11 and 15.26, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to demonstrate that patients can provide reliable ratings of functioning using the LBP-CS. The LBP-CS-SRC was shown to be acceptably reliable and precise to support understanding of patients' perspectives on disability in rehabilitation practice and research.

Parametric analyses of summative scores may lead to conflicting inferences when comparing groups: A simulation study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether using a parametric statistic in comparing groups leads to different conclusions when using summative scores from rating scales compared with using their corresponding Rasch-based measures. METHODS: A Monte Carlo simulation study was designed to examine between-group differences in the change scores derived from summative scores from rating scales, and those derived from their corresponding Rasch-based measures, using 1-way analysis of variance. The degree of inconsistency between the 2 scoring approaches (i.e. summative and Rasch-based) was examined, using varying sample sizes, scale difficulties and person ability conditions. RESULTS: This simulation study revealed scaling artefacts that could arise from using summative scores rather than Rasch-based measures for determining the changes between groups. The group differences in the change scores were statistically significant for summative scores under all test conditions and sample size scenarios. However, none of the group differences in the change scores were significant when using the corresponding Rasch-based measures. CONCLUSION: This study raises questions about the validity of the inference on group differences of summative score changes in parametric analyses. Moreover, it provides a rationale for the use of Rasch-based measures, which can allow valid parametric analyses of rating scale data.

Comparative responsiveness of verbal and numerical rating scales to measure pain intensity in patients with chronic pain.

UNLABELLED: Verbal rating scale (VRS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) are regularly used to assess and monitor pain in chronic pain patients. Although the NRS has been generally preferred, limited comparative responsiveness evidence was reported. This study compared the responsiveness of VRS and NRS measuring current pain and investigated the influence of different references (ie, worst, least, average, and current pain or their composite) on the NRSs' responsiveness. Two hundred fifty-four chronic pain patients attended a 10-day pain self-management program and were assessed with two 6-point VRSs (assessing current pain) and four 11-point NRSs (assessing worst, least, average, and current pain) at pre- and posttreatment. A patient-reported rating of pain improvement was used as the criterion for standardized response mean and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. Results showed that the VRSs and NRSs exhibited small responsiveness in all patients, but the magnitude of responsiveness became moderate to large in patients with improved pain. However, in patients with pain improvements, the NRS current pain item and composite score (made up of the 4 pain items) were found to have significantly larger responsiveness and greater discriminatory ability to detect the presence of improvement than other current pain VRSs and the NRSs assessing worst, least, and average pain. Potential implications for clinical practice are discussed. PERSPECTIVE: This study shows that the current pain and composite NRSs were more responsive than the current pain VRSs and the NRSs measuring other individual pain references in patients with improved pain, undertaking a short-term, self-management program. The results help inform the selection of pain intensity measures in studies using similar types of intervention.

Mapping patient goals to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): examining the content validity of the low back pain core sets.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Low Back Pain Core Sets are sufficient to cover the activity and participation goals that patients prioritize when commencing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. DESIGN: Prospective multi-site cross-sectional questionnaire study. SUBJECTS: Patients with chronic low back pain attending multidisciplinary outpatient clinics at two metropolitan hospitals in Australia. METHODS: Participants used the Patient Specific Functional Scale to record goals when commencing rehabilitation. Two raters employed a standardized procedure to extract and link goal concepts to the ICF. A description exploration was undertaken with reference to the low back pain Core Sets. Sample size was determined via saturation. RESULTS: Saturation was achieved with 33 participants. Ninety five goals were identified, from which 109 concepts were extracted. All of the concepts could be linked to the ICF, spanning 23 2nd-level categories. The comprehensive and brief core sets encompassed 95% and 65% of the concepts respectively. Maintaining body position (d415), doing housework (d640), changing basic body position (d410) and walking (d450) accounted for the majority (50.5%) of goals. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the content validity of the low back pain Core Sets from the patients' perspective. The Core Sets are likely to have good clinical utility, however, additional research is required to substantiate whether ratings of ICF based goals can be used to measure goal achievement.

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) can be used to describe multidisciplinary clinical assessments of people with chronic musculoskeletal conditions.

The objective of this study was to determine whether the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and an associated core set are adequate to describe multidisciplinary clinical assessments of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions. The multidisciplinary assessment (medical, psychiatry, nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and psychology) of a patient with chronic low back pain (LBP) was audio-recorded, transcribed and qualitatively examined. Concepts were extracted by two raters using a meaning condensation procedure and linked to the ICF. Descriptive analyses were used to examine the adequacy of the ICF and selection of categories contained in the comprehensive LBP core set. Overall, 1,228 concepts were extracted from the 5 h of assessment data. This included 1,056 (86.0 %) concepts that could be linked to the ICF, 366 (34.7 %) of which were designated as personal factors. Eighty different second-level ICF categories were represented in the multidisciplinary assessment. This included 48 of the 78 (61.5 %) comprehensive LBP core set categories and 32 non-core set categories. In addition, 32 of the 80 assessed categories were considered by three or more disciplines during their assessment. The ICF was found to adequately cover the concepts extracted from this patient's assessment. This study demonstrates that clinical assessments of chronic musculoskeletal conditions can be mapped to the overall ICF framework by applying the ICF linking rules. However, it also questions the content validity and clinical utility of the current comprehensive LBP core set and highlights the need for further research prior to widespread application of the tool in clinical practice.

Use of Condition-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials among Patients with Wrist Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review.

Background. This paper aimed to identify condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials among people with wrist osteoarthritis and summarise empirical peer-reviewed evidence supporting their reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. Methods. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials among people with wrist osteoarthritis was undertaken. Studies reporting reliability, validity, or responsiveness were identified using a systematic reverse citation trail audit procedure. Psychometric properties of the instruments were examined against predefined criteria and summarised. Results. Thirteen clinical trials met inclusion criteria. The most common patient-reported outcome was the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (DASH). The DASH, the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), the Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM), and the Patient-Reported Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) had evidence supporting their reliability, validity, and responsiveness. A post-hoc review of excluded studies revealed the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index as another suitable instrument that had favourable reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Conclusions. The DASH, MHQ, and AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index instruments were supported by the most favourable empirical evidence for validity, reliability, and responsiveness. The PEM and PRWE also had favourable empirical evidence reported for these elements. Further psychometric testing of these instruments among people with wrist osteoarthritis is warranted.

Counseling activity in single-session online counseling with adolescents: an adherence study.

While online counseling is increasingly utilized, little is known about what counseling work takes place in the online environment. The aim of this study was to quantify online counseling activity by determining counselors' adherence to the widely used model in which they had been trained. Transcripts (n=85) of online counseling with adolescents were evaluated, using a standardized and psychometrically sound instrument. We found that, while counseling in 53% of transcripts progressed through each of the key stages of counseling, the focus of most sessions was information gathering; and goal exploration and action planning were typically superficial and often absent. Possible reasons for low counseling depth are discussed and recommendations made for the further development of online counseling.