Quality and Usability of Arthritic Pain Self-Management Apps for Older Adults: A Systematic Review.

Objective: To appraise the quality and usability of currently available pain applications that could be used by community-dwelling older adults to self-manage their arthritic pain. Methods: A systematic review. Searches were conducted in App Store and Google Play to identify pain self-management apps relevant to arthritic pain management. English language pain management apps providing pain assessment and documentation function and pain management education were considered for inclusion. A quality evaluation audit tool based on the Stanford Arthritis Self-Management Program was developed a priori to evaluate app content quality. The usability of included apps was assessed using an established usability evaluation tool. Results: Out of the 373 apps that were identified, four met the inclusion criteria. The included apps all included a pain assessment and documentation function and instructions on medication use, communication with health professionals, cognitive behavioral therapy-based pain management, and physical exercise. Management of mood, depression, anxiety, and sleep were featured in most apps (N = 3). Three-quarters (N = 3) of the apps fell below the acceptable moderate usability score (≥3), while one app obtained a moderate score (3.2). Conclusions: Few of the currently available pain apps offer a comprehensive pain self-management approach incorporating evidence-based strategies in accordance with the Stanford Arthritis Self-Management Program. The moderate-level usability across the included apps indicates a need to consider the usability needs of the older population in future pain self-management app development endeavors.

A content review of cognitive process measures used in pain research within adult populations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Previous research suggests that measures of cognitive process may be confounded by the inclusion of items that also assess cognitive content. The primary aims of this content review were to: (1) identify the domains of cognitive processes assessed by measures used in pain research; and (2) determine if pain-specific cognitive process measures with adequate psychometric properties exist. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: PsychInfo, CINAHL, PsycArticles, MEDLINE, and Academic Search Complete databases were searched to identify the measures of cognitive process used in pain research. Identified measures were double coded and the measure's items were rated as: (1) cognitive content; (2) cognitive process; (3) behavioural/social; and/or (4) emotional coping/responses to pain. RESULTS: A total of 319 scales were identified; of these, 29 were coded as providing an un-confounded assessment of cognitive process, and 12 were pain-specific. The cognitive process domains assessed in these measures are Absorption, Dissociation, Reappraisal, Distraction/Suppression, Acceptance, Rumination, Non-Judgment, and Enhancement. Pain-specific, un-confounded measures were identified for: Dissociation, Reappraisal, Distraction/Suppression, and Acceptance. Psychometric properties of all 319 scales are reported in supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: To understand the importance of cognitive processes in influencing pain outcomes as well as explaining the efficacy of pain treatments, valid and pain-specific cognitive process measures that are not confounded with non-process domains (e.g., cognitive content) are needed. The findings of this content review suggest that future research focused on developing cognitive process measures is critical in order to advance our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie effective pain treatment. SIGNIFICANCE: Many cognitive process measures used in pain research contain a 'mix' of items that assess cognitive process, cognitive content, and behavioural/emotional responses. Databases searched: PsychInfo, CINAHL, PsycArticles, MEDLINE and Academic Search Complete. This review describes the domains assessed by measures assessing cognitive processes in pain research, as well as the strengths and limitations of these measures.

Adjunctive cognitive behavioural treatment for chronic pain couples improves marital satisfaction but not pain management outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Data have consistently shown that patient coping with chronic pain can be affected by various factors associated with the primary relationship, and hence efforts to include the patient's partner in the treatment process have merit. This study evaluated the benefit of adding an adjunctive, couples-based, cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) for chronic pain to a standard cognitive behavioural pain management programme. METHODS: Forty-five couples were randomly assigned to either an adjunctive couples intervention (n = 19) or the pain programme only (n = 26). All patient participants completed a 3-week multi-disciplinary pain management programme, to which their partners were invited to attend one full day. In addition, partners in the adjunctive condition received four, one hour treatment sessions focusing on pain education, patient-partner communication, operant behavioural principles and relapse prevention strategies. Partner sessions for the adjunctive intervention were provided over the telephone. RESULTS: By the completion of the pain programme the adjunctive couples intervention demonstrated significant improvements in marital satisfaction for the spouses over and above attendance at the pain management programme alone (p = 0.003). However, spouse involvement did not facilitate any additional response to treatment for pain patients on marital satisfaction, pain, disability or any indices of distress. All treatment gains were maintained at 1 month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that a brief CBT intervention can significantly improve marital satisfaction for spouses of chronic pain patients, but the treatment does not translate to improvements in function on any outcomes, including marital satisfaction, for patients of chronic pain. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?: A brief, telephone-based intervention for couples living with chronic pain is an acceptable format for intervention. This intervention can significantly improve marital satisfaction for partners of chronic pain patients. Patients who are already participating in a multidisciplinary pain programme will not obtain further benefit.

The influence of self-deception and impression management upon self-assessment in oral surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To see if poor self-assessment of surgical performance during removal of mandibular third molars is influenced by self-deception (lack of insight) and impression management (trying to convey a favourable impression). DESIGN: A prospective study of 50 surgeons, surgically removing a lower third molar tooth. SETTING: One UK dental school over a two year period. METHODS: The surgeons' surgical skills were assessed (by two assessors) and self-assessed using check-list and global rating scales. Post-operatively, surgeons completed validated deception questionnaires which measured both self-deception enhancement (lack of insight), and impression management (the tendency to deliberately convey a favourable impression). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reliability between assessors, and between assessors' and surgeons' self-assessments were calculated. Discrepancies between assessors' and surgeons' scores were correlated with surgeons' deception scores. RESULTS: Reliability between assessors was excellent for checklist (0.96) and global rating scales (0.89) and better than the reliability between assessors and surgeons (0.51 and 0.49). There was a statistically significant correlation (r=0.45 p=0.001 checklist, r= 0.48 p<0.001 global) between over/ under-rating of their surgical performance by surgeons and their impression management scores. No statistically significant correlation was found between this inaccuracy in self-assessment and surgeons' individual self-deception scores. CONCLUSION: The majority of surgeons scored themselves higher than their assessors did for surgical skill in removing a single mandibular third molar tooth. Impression management (the tendency to deliberately convey a favourable impression) may contribute to a surgeon's inaccurate self-reporting of performance. Lack of insight appears to be much less important as a contributing factor. The authors speculate that pressure to provide evidence of good performance may be encouraging surgeons to manage their image and over-score themselves.

Chronic idiopathic orofacial pain: II. What can the general dental practitioner do?

Currently, the majority of facial pain patients are referred onto specialists but there are treatment options available to the primary care practitioner and, indeed, good reasons for interception at the acute stage to prevent the development of chronicity. This paper attempts to synthesize contemporary theory and clinical evidence into a management strategy for the general dental practitioner.

Chronic idiopathic orofacial pain: I: What is the evidence base?

Chronic idiopathic orofacial pain is currently a problem for the specialists, but is this type of disorder peculiar to the face, and is there a role for the general dental practitioner? This article reviews the current understanding and management of medically unexplained syndromes and discusses their application in facial pain. A second article will merge this contemporary theory and clinical evidence into a management strategy, and stress the importance of early intervention in the primary care setting.

An investigation of symptom-specific muscle hyperreactivity in upper extremity cumulative trauma disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The study examined symptom-specific muscle hyperreactivity in patients with chronic pain with upper limb cumulative trauma disorder (CTD). DESIGN: Four tasks were presented in counterbalanced order and included neutral, general stressor, personal stressor, and pain stressor tasks. Ratings of stressfulness and recordings of skin conductance level confirmed the effectiveness of the experimental manipulations in inducing stress experiences for all subject groups. SETTING: The study was conducted in a university research center. PATIENTS: Thirty patients with CTD were matched as closely as possible for age and gender to control groups of chronic low back pain, arthritis, and pain-free subjects. OUTCOME MEASURES: Surface electromyograph recordings were taken from the frontalis, forearm flexors, trapezius, and lower back during baseline and tasks. RESULTS: The study found no evidence of greater muscle tension increases or extended duration of return to baseline for the CTD or low back pain patients at any of the muscle sites for any of the tasks in comparison to control groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that symptom-specific psychophysiological responses may be limited to certain subgroups rather than being characteristic of chronic musculoskeletal pain patients in general.

A comparison of the attitude of paraplegic individuals to the walkabout orthosis and the isocentric reciprocal gait orthosis.

This study compared the attitude of paraplegic individuals to the Isocentric Reciprocal Gait Orthosis (IRGO) and the Walkabout Orthosis (WO), after they had been given the opportunity of using both. Ten complete T9-12 paraplegic patients participated in this randomised cross-over design. Initially the subjects learned to walk with the first orthosis before taking it home for a 14 week home trial period. The same process of training an trialing the orthosis at home was then repeated with the second orthosis. Attitudes to specific aspects of the orthoses were assessed by an 18 point questionnaire and overall attitudes were inferred after determining the amount of time that subjects used the orthoses at home and determining which orthosis the majority of subjects wanted to keep at the end of the study. The main finding was that subjects did not perceive any significant differences between the two orthoses. That is: (i) the questionnaire did not detect significant differences in attitudes to the two orthoses; (ii) there was no significant difference in the number of subjects tat preferred one orthosis to the other, at the end of the study, and (iii) subjects did not derive more use from one orthosis than the other over the two 14 week home trial periods. In addition, it was found that few subjects wore either orthosis more than once every 2 weeks and that subjects were primarily using the orthoses for therapeutic purposes. This latter finding was supported by the results of the questionnaire that revealed that subjects found both orthoses to be useful for standing but not useful for performing more purposeful tasks. It was concluded that when subjects are primarily using the WO and IRGO for therapeutic purposes, they do not readily perceive differences between the two.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy versus EMG biofeedback in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

Forty-four chronic, but relatively well functioning, low back pain patients were assigned to either Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT). Electromyographic Biofeedback (EMGBF) or Wait List Control (WLC). Both treatments were conducted over eight sessions in groups of four subjects. Results at post-treatment indicated significant improvements in functioning on measures of pain intensity, perceived level of disability, adaptive beliefs about pain and the level of depression in both the CBT and EMGBF conditions. These improvements were not evident for the WLC condition. At 6 months follow-up, treatment gains were maintained in the areas of pain intensity, pain beliefs, and depression, for both treatment groups, with further improvements occurring in anxiety and use of active coping skills. No significant differences were found between CBT and EMGBF on any of the outcome measures at either post-treatment or at 6 months follow-up. Further research is required to determine the degree to which these results reflect the mild level of psychological impairment and disability status of patients in the present study.