Waiting in Pain II: An Updated Analysis of the Multidisciplinary Staffing Levels and Clinical Activity in Australian Specialist Persistent Pain Services.

This study provides an update on multidisciplinary staffing and clinical activity in Australian specialist persistent pain services. Of the 109 services identified, 57 responded, met inclusion criteria and completed a study-specific questionnaire detailing service characteristics, staff resources, and clinical activities. Where possible, data were compared between the 'Waiting in Pain' (WIP) investigations (WIP-I: Dec'08-Jan'10, WIP-II: Jul'16-Feb'18). WIP-II found more pain services (Level 1 centres, rural services) and more full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing (overall, psychiatry, psychology, occupational therapy) than WIP-I. Although Level 1 centres employed more FTE staff (overall, medical) than Level 2 clinics, staffing was comparable when considered relative to clinical activity and this was stable over time for most disciplines. Clinical activity in metropolitan and rural services also remained stable, as did rural service staffing (type, FTE), suggesting that newer clinics replicated existing models. WIP-II highlighted greater diversity in group structures than WIP-I and an associated mean .02FTE allied health staff/patient seen (WIP-I = .03 FTE). Staffing (amounts, types) did not change significantly over time when considered relative to clinical activity, supporting the conclusion that these are workable clinical structures. However, changes in group format (duration, staffing) suggest a shift towards lower-intensity programmes that require less allied health staffing to deliver. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents updated data regarding multidisciplinary staffing profiles, clinical activity, and group programme structures within Australian specialist persistent pain services and examines changes since the original investigation. As the only published staffing profile for multidisciplinary pain services, this project provides critical information to inform service (re)design and care delivery.

Osteoarthritis consumers as co-researchers: identifying consumer insights to improve osteoarthritis management by co-designing translational research solutions.

INTRODUCTION: Co-design is a consumer-driven approach that facilitates consumer participation in creating meaningful solutions to complex problems. Poor uptake of core management strategies for osteoarthritis suggests there is a missing link in translation between research and practice. We partnered with osteoarthritis consumers as 'co-researchers' to identify translational research solutions to improve uptake of core management strategies that are grounded in lived experiences. OBJECTIVE: To transparently describe a theory-driven, generative co-design approach using an integrated conceptual framework to collaborate with consumers at the equal partnership level. DESIGN: We used co-design workshops with a non-hierarchical participatory framework. Three workshops with six co-researchers [2 female, mean age 68.7 (9.8) years, 3-30 years symptom duration] were conducted using activities to encourage creative thinking, promote deep reflection on personal/societal beliefs and minimise sensitivities around sharing personal beliefs (e.g., establishing a safe space, prompting questions, perspective-taking, counter-stereotypical exemplars). RESULTS: All six co-researchers actively participated in the workshops. Achievement of an equal collaborative partnership was evidenced by co-researchers challenging a project proposed by the research team and making alternative recommendations that have been implemented in prospective decision-making - representing a complete change in research focus driven by consumer input. A key suggested solution was to develop a scalable knowledge translation intervention that targets misconceptions about osteoarthritis and its management at the societal-level. CONCLUSIONS: Through an innovative co-design approach in partnership with co-researchers, we identified meaningful areas on which to focus translational research for osteoarthritis. Discordance between existing research priorities and novel solutions proposed by co-researchers highlights the value of co-design.

The effect of handedness on mental rotation of hands: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Body-specific mental rotation is thought to rely upon internal representations of motor actions. Handedness is a source of distinctly different motor experience that shapes the development of such internal representations. Yet, the influence of handedness upon hand mental rotation has never been systematically evaluated. Five databases were searched for studies evaluating hand left/right judgement tasks in adults. Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Eighty-seven datasets were included, with 72 datasets pooled; all had unclear/high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed that right-handers were faster, but not more accurate, than left-handers at hand mental rotation. A unique effect of handedness was found on performance facilitation for images corresponding to the dominant hand. Meta-analyses showed that right-handers were quicker at identifying images of right hands than left hands-a dominance advantage not evident in left-handers. Differing hand representations (more lateralised hand dominance in right-handers) likely underpin these findings. Given potential differences between hand preference and motor performance, future research exploring their distinct contributions to mental rotation is warranted.

Modulation of pain via expectation of its location.

BACKGROUND: The spatial precision of expectancy effects on pain is unclear. We hypothesized that expecting nociceptive stimuli at particular skin sites would have an analgesic effect on nociceptive stimuli presented between them (middle zone). METHODS: Laser stimuli (evoking pin-prick pain) were delivered to three discrete skin zones on the forearm, under two conditions. During 'Localization', participants' expectation of stimuli was spatially divided between two locations (expected stimuli in only the outer two skin zones): pain intensity and stimulus location were judged. During 'No-localization' (control condition), participants had no expectation concerning stimulus location; only pain intensity was rated. Additional experiments assessed the importance of the actual location on the forearm by: shifting all skin zones proximally towards the elbow (control for joint proximity, Experiment 2); adding a fourth zone distally (control for interaction between joint proximity and enhanced distal inhibition, Experiment 3). RESULTS: All experiments demonstrated spatially specific pain modulation, but only Experiment 2 (near elbow) supported our hypothesis: middle zone pain intensity was significantly lower (p = 0.02) during Localization than No-localization. Experiment 1 (near wrist) found reduced pain intensity during Localization only for the distal zone (p = 0.04). Experiment 3 confirmed this effect: reduced pain during Localization occurred only for the most distal zone (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Expecting a painful stimulus in non-adjacent skin sites has spatially specific effects on pain modulation, but this reflects an interaction between the expected location of stimulation and the actual location. This suggests a more complex connection between somatotopic maps and nociceptive modulation than previously thought; several distinct mechanisms likely contribute.