Search

Introduction: Acute low back pain (LBP) is a common experience; however, the associated pain severity, pain frequency, and characteristics of individuals with acute LBP in community settings have yet to be well understood. In this manuscript, two acute-LBP severity categorization definitions were developed: 1) pain impact frequency (impact-based) and 2) pain intensity (intensity-based) severity categories. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe and then compare these acute-LBP severity groups in the following characteristics: 1) sociodemographic, 2) general and physical health, and 3) psychological using a feasibility cohort study. Methods: This cross-sectional study used baseline data from 131 community-based participants with acute LBP (< 4 weeks duration before screening and ≥ 30 pain-free days before acute LBP onset). Descriptive associations were calculated as prevalence ratios of categorical variables and Hedges' g for continuous variables. Results: Our analyses identified several large associations for impact-based and intensity-based categories with global mental health, global physical health, STarT Back Screening Tool risk category, and general health. Larger associations were found with social constructs (racially and ethnically minoritized, performance of social roles, and isolation) when using the intensity-based versus impact-based categorization. Discussion: This study adds to the literature by providing standard ways to characterize community-based individuals experiencing acute-LBP. The robust differences observed between these categorization approaches suggest that how we define acute-LBP severity is consequential; these different approaches may be used to improve the early identification of factors potentially contributing to the development of chronic-LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Performance status is an important concept in oncology, but is typically clinician-reported. Efforts are underway to include patient-reported measures in cancer care, which may improve patient symptoms, quality of life and overall survival. The purpose of this study was to gain a preliminary understanding of how patients determined their physical performance status based on a novel patient-reported version of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG) scale. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews, including concept elicitation and cognitive interviewing as part of the Patient Reports of Physical Functioning Study (PROPS) to investigate how participants selected their answers to a novel patient-reported ECOG. Participants were administered the patient-reported ECOG and asked to describe devices and modifications used to keep up with daily activities. Results: Participants generally understood the ECOG as intended. Participants with recent changes in status had some difficulty selecting an answer. Most participants used modifications and assistive devices in their daily lives but did not incorporate these into their rational for the ECOG. Conclusion: The potential benefits of a patient-reported ECOG are numerous and this study demonstrates that participants were able to understand and answer the patient-reported ECOG as intended. We recommend future evaluation for the most-appropriate recall period, whether to include modifications in the ECOG instructions, and if increasing the number of response options to the patient-reported ECOG may improve confidence when providing an answer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Translation of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to practice remains suboptimal. The primary purpose of this systematic review was to describe the use of implementation strategies to promote KOA CPG–recommended care. Methods: Medline (via PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to February 23, 2023, and the search was subsequently updated and expanded on January 16, 2024. Implementation strategies were mapped per the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria. The review was registered prospectively (PROSPERO identifier: CRD42023402383). Results: Nineteen studies were included in the final review. All (100% [n = 4]) studies that included the domains of "provide interactive assistance," "train and educate stakeholders" (89% [n = 16]), "engage consumers" (87% [n = 13]), and "support clinicians" (79% [n = 11]) showed a change to provider adherence. Studies that showed a change to disability included the domains of "train and educate stakeholders," "engage consumers," and "adapt and tailor to context." Studies that used the domains "train and educate stakeholders," "engage consumers," and "support clinicians" showed a change in pain and quality of life. Most studies had a low to moderate RoB. Conclusion: Implementation strategies have the potential to impact clinician uptake of CPGs and patient‐reported outcomes. The implementation context, using an active learning strategy with a patient partner, restructuring funding models, and integrating taxonomies to tailor multifaceted strategies should be prioritized. Further experimental research is recommended to determine which implementation strategies are most effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Successful patient-focused drug development involves selecting and measuring outcomes in clinical trials that are important to patients. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration's definition of clinical benefit includes how patients feel, function, or survive. Patients are considered the experts in describing how they feel and function. In cancer trials, patient-reported measures of physical function provide insight into how patients function at baseline, benefit from the interventions being studied, and the impact of treatment side effects. We conducted a qualitative study with adults diagnosed with cancer to describe facets of physical function from their perspective and to identify which facets are most important to this patient population. Methods: Using concept elicitation and cognitive interviewing techniques, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 72 adults ≥ 22 years of age with cancer who received treatment with an anticancer drug or biologic within six months of the interview. We selected participants using purposive sampling with the aim to elicit diverse experiences regarding how they may interpret and respond to questions related to physical function. Participants were presented with patient-reported outcome (PRO) items representative of PRO measures used in cancer and general populations. Results: Five facets of how physical function relates to activities were defined from the patient perspective: ability, difficulty, limitation, satisfaction, and completion. More than half of the participants indicated that ability was the most important facet of physical function. The next most important were satisfaction (18.3%), limitation (14.1%), difficulty (5.6%), and completion (2.8%). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that we must be more specific about the facets of physical function that we set out to assess when we use PRO measures to describe the patient experience. These results have implications for the specificity of physical function facets when measured in cancer clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has identified physical functioning (PF) as a core patient-reported outcome (PRO) in cancer clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to identify PF PRO measures (PROMs) in adult cancer populations and classify the PROMs by content covered (facets of PF) in each measure. Methods: As part of the Patient Reports of Physical Functioning Study (PROPS) research program, we conducted a targeted literature review to identify PROMs that could be used in clinical trials to evaluate PF from the patient perspective. Next, we convened an advisory panel to conduct a modified, reactive, Delphi study to reach consensus on which PF facets are assessed by PROMs identified in the review. The panel engaged in a "card sort" activity to classify PROM items by PF facets. Consensus was reached when 80% of panel members agreed that at least one facet was being measured by each PROM item. Results: The literature review identified 13 PROMs that met inclusion criteria. Eight facets of PF were identified for classification in the Delphi study: ability, completion, difficulty, limitation, quality, frequency, bother, and satisfaction. Through two rounds, the panel documented and classified conceptual approaches for each PRO item presented. The most prevalent PF facets were ability, difficulty, and limitation. Conclusion: Classifying PF PROMs by PF facets will promote more consistent communication regarding the aspects of PF represented in each PROM, helping researchers prioritize measures for inclusion in cancer clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Biochemical biomarkers may provide insight into musculoskeletal pain reported at individual or multiple body sites. The purpose of this study was to determine if biomarkers or pressure-pain threshold (PPT) were associated with individual or multiple sites of pain. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis included 689 community-based participants. Self-reported symptoms (ie, pain, aching, or stiffness) were ascertained about the neck, upper back/thoracic, low back, shoulders, elbows, wrist, hands, hips, knees, ankles, and feet. Measured analytes included CXCL-6, RANTES, HA, IL-6, BDNF, OPG and NPY. A standard dolorimeter measured PPT. Logistic regression was used determine the association between biomarkers and PPT with individual and summed sites of pain. Results: Increased IL-6 and HA were associated with knee pain (OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.03, 1.64) and (OR=1.32, 95% CI 1.01, 1.73) respectively; HA was also associated with elbow/wrist/hand pain (OR=1.60, 95% CI 1.22, 2.09). Those with increased NPY levels were less likely to have shoulder pain (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.33, 0.93). Biomarkers HA (OR=1.50, 95% CI 1.07, 2.10), OPG (OR=1.74, 95% CI 1.00, 3.03), CXCL-6 (OR=1.75, 95% CI 1.02, 3.01) and decreased PPT (OR=3.97, 95% CI 2.22, 7.12) were associated with multiple compared to no sites of pain. Biomarker HA (OR=1.57, 95% CI 1.06, 2.32) and decreased PPT (OR=3.53, 95% CI 1.81, 6.88) were associated with multiple compared to a single site of pain. Conclusion: Biomarkers of inflammation (HA, OPG, IL-6 and CXCL-6), pain (NPY) and PPT may help to understand the etiology of single and multiple pain sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implementation of recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations to move away from opioids and toward nonpharmacological therapies for the treatment of chronic pain could involve a difficult transition period for patients and practitioners. The focus of treatment should shift from eliminating pain completely to minimizing the impact of pain on quality of life. Many patients with chronic pain take opioids either because opioids were previously prescribed as a first-line treatment for chronic pain, on the basis of old standards of care, or because opioids were initially prescribed for acute pain. Patients currently taking opioids will need a tapering period during which they transition their pain management to interdisciplinary care and nonpharmacological treatments. To provide useful treatment options, physical therapists need to have a good understanding of the neuroscientific mechanisms of chronic pain, biopsychosocial components of chronic pain management, issues related to opioid use, and pain management strategies used by other health care professionals. Armed with knowledge and good communication skills, physical therapists can work within an interdisciplinary team to adapt care to each patient's needs and abilities. This perspective article provides guidance for physical therapists to effectively treat patients with chronic pain during the opioid tapering process. A framework has been created to help health care providers structure their reasoning as they collaborate to develop a unique approach for each patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]