Is there an association between sleep quality and magnitude of capability?

PURPOSE: Given the stigma surrounding mental health, a discussion of how symptoms interfere with sleep might be a useful first step to identify unhelpful thoughts or feelings of distress. We asked: 1) Does sleep quality have an association with magnitude of incapability and pain intensity independent of mental health? and 2) Are mental health factors associated with sleep quality? METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of one hundred and fifty-four patients seeking musculoskeletal care who completed measures of magnitude of capability, pain intensity, unhelpful thoughts regarding symptoms (catastrophic thinking, negative pain thoughts), distress (symptoms of anxiety and depression), and sleep disturbance. We tested factors associated with the magnitude of capability and pain intensity, accounting for sleep quality and mental health in multivariable models. RESULTS: Accounting for potential confounding in multivariable analysis, lower magnitude of capability was independently associated with greater sleep disturbance, more unhelpful thoughts about symptoms (negative pain thoughts), and older age. Greater pain intensity was independently associated with greater unhelpful thoughts about symptoms (catastrophic thinking) and not using of an electronic device before bed. Greater sleep disturbance was independently associated with use of sleep medication, greater symptoms of anxiety, and greater unhelpful thoughts regarding symptoms (PCS). CONCLUSION: Given the observation that sleep disturbance is associated with feelings of anxiety, clinicians can consider starting mental health discussions by focusing on sleep quality. App and web-based cognitive behavioral therapy-based treatments for sleep are readily available and have the potential to improve mental health.

People Have Mixed Reactions to Both Physiological and Psychological Explanations of Disproportionate Pain.

BACKGROUND: There are two general frameworks that conceptualize pain that is more intense or persistent than expected based on measurable pathologic findings: the psychological (unhelpful thoughts and emotions) and the physiological (purported nervous system dysfunction, such as central sensitization). Some clinicians believe people will be more receptive to a physiological conceptualization. Prior quantitative research demonstrated that carefully crafted psychological explanations are rated similarly to crafted physiological explanations, with relatively mixed reactions. This qualitative study was undertaken in parallel with that quantitative study to help develop effective communication and treatment strategies by identifying specific thoughts and feelings (themes) regarding the physiological and psychological conceptualizations of disproportionate pain that make people more or less comfortable considering comprehensive, biopsychosocial treatment approaches. QUESTION/PURPOSE: What themes arise in patient thoughts and feelings regarding physiological and psychological conceptualizations of pain that is more intense or persistent than expected? METHODS: We sought to understand the experience of considering pain as a biopsychosocial experience (phenomenology approach) by studying the thoughts and feelings that arise as people seeking care for arm and back pain engage with physiological and psychological conceptualizations of pain that is more intense or persistent than one would expect based on the pathology. We recruited 29 patients presenting for upper extremity or back pain specialty care at one of two urban offices, intentionally recruiting people of various ages, genders, backgrounds, socioeconomic status, as well as type and duration of pain (purposive sampling). The 29 patients included 18 women and 11 men (16 married, 15 non-White, 20 with arm pain) with a median (interquartile range) age of 62 years (42 to 67). The interviews were conducted by a trained woman orthopaedic surgeon interviewer using a semistructured interview guide soliciting participants' thoughts and feelings about a physiological explanation (nerves in the central nervous system stuck in the on position can make pain more intense) and a psychological explanation (unhelpful thoughts and feelings of distress can make pain more intense) for pain more intense or persistent than expected. The interviews were transcribed and themes were identified as the data were collected. Based on current experimental evidence, including what is known about the physiological effects of thoughts, feelings, and context (placebo/nocebo effects), we assumed an underlying physiological basis for pain that is variably experienced and expressed (mixed postpositive/interpretive approach). Themes were identified in the interview transcripts systematically by two coders and then discussed with the entire research team to arrive at consensus. We stopped enrolling patients when the authors agreed that additional themes did not arise in five consecutive interviews. RESULTS: The following themes and interpretations were derived from the analysis: Neither the physiological nor the psychological explanation for disproportionate pain (1) avoided the stigma associated with mental health, (2) was consistently understood, (3) provided a consistent sense of control, (4) consistently provided hope, and (5) represented the stress and emotion of disproportionate or persistent pain. The physiological explanation also generated mixed reactions regarding whether or not it: (1) was a useful point of conversation, (2) was reassuring or frightening, and (3) supported physiological or psychological treatments. The psychological explanation made some people feel worse. CONCLUSION: People have mixed reactions to both physiological and psychological explanations of disproportionate pain. As such, without direction on content, communication might be most effective by focusing on relational aspects, such as emotional connection and trust. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although there is room to improve the content of strategies for explaining more pain than expected to patients, our findings extend the discoveries of others in highlighting the need for tailored relational communication strategies that prioritize feeling heard, validated, and accompanied.

Can Crafted Communication Strategies Allow Musculoskeletal Specialists to Address Health Within the Biopsychosocial Paradigm?

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal specialists who attempt to discuss the connection between mental health (thoughts and emotions) and physical health (symptom intensity and activity tolerance) with patients, may fear that they risk offending those patients. In a search for language that creates comfort with difficult conversations, some specialists favor a biomedical framework, such as central sensitization, which posits abnormal central neuron activity. Without addressing the relative accuracy of mind- or brain-based conceptualizations, we addressed crafted and practiced communication strategies as conversation starters that allow specialists to operate within a biopsychosocial framework without harming the relationship with the patient. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We measured (1) patient resonance with various explanations of the mind-body connection, including examples of both mind- and brain-based communication strategies, and (2) factors associated with resonance and emotional reactions to the explanations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, all adult new and returning patients who were literate in English and who attended several musculoskeletal specialty offices were invited to complete questionnaires addressing reactions to one of seven explanations of the mind-body connection assigned using a random number generator. Acknowledging that the relative accuracy of mind-based and nerve- or brain-based strategies are speculative, we developed the following conversation starters: two explanations that were cognitively framed ("the mind is a great story teller"; one positively framed and one negatively framed), two emotionally framed explanations ("stressed or down"; one positively framed and one negatively framed), one mentioning thoughts and emotions in more neutral terms ("mind and body work together … thoughts and emotions affect the way your body experiences pain"), and two biomedical neurophysiology-based explanations ("nerves get stuck in an over-excited state" and "overstimulated nerves"), all crafted with the assistance of a communication scholar. It was unusual for people to decline (although the exact number of those who did was not tracked) and 304 of 308 patients who started the questionnaires completed them and were analyzed. In this sample, 51% (155 of 304) were men, and the mean ± SD age was 49 ± 17 years. Reactions were measured as resonance (a 1 to 5 Likert scale regarding the degree to which the stated concept aligns with their understanding of health and by inference is a comfortable topic of discussion) and self-assessment manikins using circled figurines to measure feelings of happiness (frowning to smiling figures), stimulation/excitement (a relaxed sleepy figure to an energized wide-eyed figure), and security/control (small to large figures). These are commonly used to quantify the appeal and emotive content of a given message. Patients also completed surveys of demographics and mental health. Multilevel multivariable linear regression models were constructed to assess factors associated with resonance, happiness, excitement, and control. RESULTS: Controlling for potential confounding variables such as demographics and mental health measures, a relatively neutral biopsychosocial explanation ("mind and body work together") had the greatest mean resonance (4.2 ± 0.8 versus 3.8 ± 0.9 for the other explanations; p < 0.01) and the largest regression coefficient for resonance (0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.41 to 1.15]). The next-most-resonant explanations were biomedical ("excitable nerves", "over-excited state"). Biopsychosocial explanations that mention stress, distress, or cognitive bias ("mind is a great storyteller") had lower resonance. People with greater unhealthy cognitive bias regarding pain (more catastrophic thinking) were less comfortable with all the explanations (lower resonance, regression coefficient -0.03 [95% CI -0.06 to -0.01]). Emotional reactions were relatively comparable with the exception that people felt less control and security with specific explanations such as "excitable nerves" and "mind is a great storyteller." CONCLUSION: Crafted communication strategies allow musculoskeletal specialists to address health within the biopsychosocial paradigm without harming their relationship with the patient. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Musculoskeletal specialists may be the first clinicians to notice mental health opportunities. It may be helpful for them to develop and practice effective communication strategies that make mental health a comfortable topic of discussion.

Is It Time to Replace the Oswestry Index With PROMIS Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test?

OBJECTIVE: To address the relative influence of psychological factors on variation in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI) scores. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: We enrolled patients with low back pain, presenting to clinicians specializing in the treatment of spine conditions in a large urban area. PARTICIPANTS: New and return English-speaking patients (N=116). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The PF CAT and ODI. METHODS: Patients completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale short form, Patient Health Questionnaire short form (PHQ-2), Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire short form (PSEQ-2), PROMIS PF CAT and ODI on a secure tablet. RESULTS: The 95% CI for the amount of variation in PROMIS PF CAT scores (95% CI, 0.06-0.31) accounted for by psychological measures overlapped with the 95% CI for the amount of variation in ODI scores (CI, 0.26-0.53). PROMIS PF CAT had a strong correlation with ODI (r=-0.69; P<.001). Greater PROMIS PF CAT scores were independently associated with fewer symptoms of depression (ß=-1.6; 95% CI, -2.7 to -0.58; P=.003). Higher ODI scores were independently associated with more catastrophic thinking (ß=1.2; 95% CI, 0.60-1.88; P<.001) and less self-efficacy (ß=-2.4; 95% CI, -3.2 to -1.5; P<.001). PSEQ-2 accounted for the largest proportion of variation in ODI. PHQ-2 accounted for the largest proportion of variation in PROMIS PF CAT. Psychological measures explained more variation in ODI (semipartial R2=0.48 for psychological measures; adjusted R2 full model=0.49) than in PROMIS PF CAT (semipartial R2=0.17 for psychological measures; adjusted R2 full model=0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The ODI and PROMIS PF CAT are comparably sensitive to psychological factors in patients with persistent lower back pain. Given that the PROMIS PF CAT is more efficient to administer, clinicians might consider using PROMIS PF CAT when assessing physical limitations in patients with persistent lower back pain.

Psychosocial Factors Are Associated with Electronic Portal Registration.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records often include a portal for secure patient-clinician communication. There is evidence that use of electronic portals increases satisfaction, treatment adherence, safety, and clinical outcomes. We want everyone to enjoy these benefits and we noticed low and uneven portal use. We studied factors that we can address to improve portal use. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: After controlling for differences in patient characteristics, what psychological and demographic factors are associated with an increased likelihood of registering for an electronic health record portal among people seeking musculoskeletal specialty care? METHODS: We reviewed data on 5672 adult English or Spanish-speaking patients seen in a musculoskeletal specialty office between October 2017 and December 2019. Eighteen percent (996 patients) had missing measures of symptoms of depression and anxiety due to intermittent problems with survey technology, leaving 4676 for analysis, 42% (1970 of 4676) men and 58% (2706 of 4676) women with a mean age of 51±15, 76% (3569 of 4676) of patients were English speaking, 22% (1015 of 4676) were Spanish speaking, and 2% (92 of 4676) spoke another language. Seventy-seven percent (3620 of 4676) of patients were residents of Austin, Texas, USA, 4% (159) were from Pflugerville, Texas, USA, 3% (143) were from Del Valle, Texas, USA, and 16% (754 of 4676) were from other areas of Texas. Ninety nine percent of patients were residents of Texas (4645 of 4676). Twenty-three percent of patients visited the upper extremity team (1077 of 4676), 37% the lower extremity team (1721 of 4676), 21% the back and neck team (1002 of 4676), and 19% the sport medicine team (876 of 4676). Seventy eight percent of patients (3654 of 4676) registered in portal and 22% (1022 of 4676) did not. The omitted population were not different from our study population in terms of age, gender, language, residence, and region of symptoms. We used a two-question measure of symptoms of depression (Patient Health Quality-2 [PHQ-2]) and a two-question measure of symptoms of anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-2 [GAD-2]). The primary outcome was portal registration. To account for potential confounding, a multivariable logistic regressions model was used to determine the influence of age, spoken language, city and state of residence, care team, number of completed visits and GAD and PHQ scores on portal registration. RESULTS: After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as state of residence, we found younger age (odds ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.97 to 0.99]; p < 0.01), speaking English (OR 1.85 [95% CI 1.14 to 3.02]; p = 0.01) rather than Spanish (OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.17 to 0.45]; p < 0.01), seeking care for back or neck symptoms, (OR 3.84 [95% CI 2.60 to 5.66]; p < 0.01) and higher number of completed visits (OR 1.03 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.05]; p < 0.01) were associated with an increased likelihood of portal registration while living in Austin, Texas, USA (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.87]; p < 0.01) and Del Valle, Texas, USA (OR 0.47 [95% CI 0.30 to 0.74]; p < 0.01) compared with Pflugerville, Texas, USA, or other cities, seeking care for upper extremity (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.58 to 0.94]; p = 0.01) or lower extremity symptoms (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.86]; p < 0.01), and greater symptoms of anxiety (GAD score) (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95 to 0.99]; p < 0.01) or depression (PHQ score) (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95 to 0.98]; p < 0.01) were associated with lower likelihood of registering for the portal. English language, city of residence, and seeking care for back or neck symptoms (due to insurance contracts) were all associated with higher socioeconomic status in our setting. CONCLUSIONS: The association of better mental and social health (financial, employment, housing and food security; connectedness) with registration in a communication portal directs us to be more intentional about efforts to specifically welcome disadvantaged people to participate in the portal and to study the impact and effectiveness of such efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.