Search

Funding agencies:Center for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace 1 U19 OH012299United States Department of Health & Human ServicesCenters for Disease Control & Prevention - USANational Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH)

Background and aims: In the spring of 2019, Professor Steven J. Linton, the founder of the Center for Health and Medical Psychology (CHAMP) at Örebro University, Sweden, formally retired. As a tribute to his scholarly work covering decades of influence and inspiration to the field of pain psychology, the research center organized a topical conference titled "Pain in the 21st century: Where do we come from and where are we going?", which resulted in this state-of the-art synthesis. The aim of this declaration is to highlight lessons learned but not in the least is meant to inspire and guide our continued journey forward, developing pain psychology into the 21st century. Methods: Several collaborators of Professor Linton have summarized and reflected on the current state-of-the-art of pain psychology from the perspective of his input to the field, as well as on developments from the last years of advancements in pain psychology. Results: The topics have been divided into six themed sections covering the fear avoidance model, transdiagnostics, secondary prevention, risk- and protective factors, communication and contextual factors. The sections cover a broad spectrum, from basic experimental studies, integrating emotion and motivational theories into current theoretical models, to applied research on the effect of early interventions as well as sophisticated emotion-focused treatment models for pain patients with concurrent emotional ill-health. Conclusions: There have been major advancements within pain psychology research during the last decades, moving the field towards a more comprehensive picture, taking emotional and motivational aspects into account to understand pain sufferers. Although psychologically informed interventions in general mainly focus on the individual, it has been put forward that pain management is highly influenced by the surrounding environment, including communication with health care providers, and the occupational and social context. Implic

Objectives: To test whether change in fear-avoidance beliefs was a mediator of the effect of treatment on disability outcome, and to test an analytical approach, latent growth modeling, not often applied to mediation analysis. Methods: Secondary analysis was carried out on a randomized controlled trial designed to compare an intervention addressing fear-avoidance beliefs (n=119) with treatment as usual (n=121) for patients with low back pain, which found the intervention to be effective. Latent growth modelling was used to perform a mediation analysis on the trial data to assess the role of change in fear-avoidance beliefs on disability outcome. The product of coefficients with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals was used to calculate the mediating effect. Results: A statistically significant mediating effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the effect of treatment on disability outcome was found (standardized indirect effect −0.35; bias-corrected 95% CI, −0.47 to −0.24). Poor fit of the model to the data suggested that other factors not accounted for in this model are likely to be part of the same mediating pathway. Discussion: Fear-avoidance beliefs were found to mediate the effect of treatment on disability outcome. Measurement of all potential mediator variables in future studies would help to more strongly identify which factors explain observed treatment effects. Latent growth modelling was found to be a useful technique to apply to studies of treatment mediation, suggesting that future studies could use this approach.

Objectives: To test whether change in fear-avoidance beliefs was a mediator of the effect of treatment on disability outcome, and to test an analytical approach, latent growth modeling, not often applied to mediation analysis. Methods: Secondary analysis was carried out on a randomized controlled trial designed to compare an intervention addressing fear-avoidance beliefs (n=119) with treatment as usual (n=121) for patients with low back pain, which found the intervention to be effective. Latent growth modelling was used to perform a mediation analysis on the trial data to assess the role of change in fear-avoidance beliefs on disability outcome. The product of coefficients with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals was used to calculate the mediating effect. Results: A statistically significant mediating effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the effect of treatment on disability outcome was found (standardized indirect effect −0.35; bias-corrected 95% CI, −0.47 to −0.24). Poor fit of the model to the data suggested that other factors not accounted for in this model are likely to be part of the same mediating pathway. Discussion: Fear-avoidance beliefs were found to mediate the effect of treatment on disability outcome. Measurement of all potential mediator variables in future studies would help to more strongly identify which factors explain observed treatment effects. Latent growth modelling was found to be a useful technique to apply to studies of treatment mediation, suggesting that future studies could use this approach.

Objectives: To test whether change in fear-avoidance beliefs was a mediator of the effect of treatment on disability outcome, and to test an analytical approach, latent growth modeling, not often applied to mediation analysis. Methods: Secondary analysis was carried out on a randomized controlled trial designed to compare an intervention addressing fear-avoidance beliefs (n=119) with treatment as usual (n=121) for patients with low back pain, which found the intervention to be effective. Latent growth modelling was used to perform a mediation analysis on the trial data to assess the role of change in fear-avoidance beliefs on disability outcome. The product of coefficients with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals was used to calculate the mediating effect. Results: A statistically significant mediating effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the effect of treatment on disability outcome was found (standardized indirect effect −0.35; bias-corrected 95% CI, −0.47 to −0.24). Poor fit of the model to the data suggested that other factors not accounted for in this model are likely to be part of the same mediating pathway. Discussion: Fear-avoidance beliefs were found to mediate the effect of treatment on disability outcome. Measurement of all potential mediator variables in future studies would help to more strongly identify which factors explain observed treatment effects. Latent growth modelling was found to be a useful technique to apply to studies of treatment mediation, suggesting that future studies could use this approach.

Objectives: To test whether change in fear-avoidance beliefs was a mediator of the effect of treatment on disability outcome, and to test an analytical approach, latent growth modeling, not often applied to mediation analysis. Methods: Secondary analysis was carried out on a randomized controlled trial designed to compare an intervention addressing fear-avoidance beliefs (n=119) with treatment as usual (n=121) for patients with low back pain, which found the intervention to be effective. Latent growth modelling was used to perform a mediation analysis on the trial data to assess the role of change in fear-avoidance beliefs on disability outcome. The product of coefficients with bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals was used to calculate the mediating effect. Results: A statistically significant mediating effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the effect of treatment on disability outcome was found (standardized indirect effect −0.35; bias-corrected 95% CI, −0.47 to −0.24). Poor fit of the model to the data suggested that other factors not accounted for in this model are likely to be part of the same mediating pathway. Discussion: Fear-avoidance beliefs were found to mediate the effect of treatment on disability outcome. Measurement of all potential mediator variables in future studies would help to more strongly identify which factors explain observed treatment effects. Latent growth modelling was found to be a useful technique to apply to studies of treatment mediation, suggesting that future studies could use this approach.

Purpose: Employer policies and practices have been shown to impact workplace disability, but research in this area has waned in recent years despite an aging workforce, a growing prevalence of chronic health conditions, and a larger proportion of working-age adults on permanent work disability in many jurisdictions. The purpose of this article is to describe the background rationale and methodology for an invited conference designed to improve research of employer strategies to curtail work disability. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of 26 international researchers with published research in employer-based disability management or related fields were invited to attend a 3-day conference in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA. The overall goal was to review the status of current research of workplace disability management and prevention, examine its relevance for employer decision-making, compare conceptual frameworks or theoretical perspectives, and recommend future research directions. Working groups were organized and draft manuscripts were prepared in advance. Conference activities included working group presentations and critiques, discussions with a panel of industry consultants and advisors, group interaction and debate, generation of final recommendations, and manuscript revision. Results/Conclusion: Six principal domains were established with respect to future research: (a) further elucidation of the key workplace factors that buffer the disabling effects of injury and illness; (b) more innovative and feasible options for workplace intervention; (c) measurement of workplace-relevant disability outcomes; (d) a stronger theoretical framework for understanding the factors behind employer uptake and implementation; (e) a focus on special clinical populations and occupations where disability risk is most troubling; and (f) better representation of workers and employers that reflect the diverse and changing nature of work. Final comments and recommendations of the wor, Funding Agency:Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA

Purpose: For work disability research to have an impact on employer policies and practices it is important for such research to acknowledge and incorporate relevant aspects of the workplace. The goal of this article is to summarize recent theoretical and methodological advances in the field of Implementation Science, relate these to research of employer disability management practices, and recommend future research priorities. Methods: The authors participated in a year-long collaboration culminating in an invited 3-day conference, “Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability”, held October 14–16, 2015, in Hopkinton, MA, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the literature, group conference calls to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, review of industry publications, and a conference presentation that included feedback from peer researchers and a question/answer session with a special panel of knowledge experts with direct employer experience. Results: A 4-phase implementation model including both outer and inner contexts was adopted as the most appropriate conceptual framework, and aligned well with the set of process evaluation factors described in both the work disability prevention literature and the grey literature. Innovative interventions involving disability risk screening and psychologically-based interventions have been slow to gain traction among employers and insurers. Research recommendations to address this are : (1) to assess organizational culture and readiness for change in addition to individual factors; (2) to conduct process evaluations alongside controlled trials; (3) to analyze decision-making factors among stakeholders; and (4) to solicit input from employers and insurers during early phases of study design. Conclusions: Future research interventions involving workplace support and involvement to prevent disability may be more feasible for implementation if organizational decision

Social factors are widely acknowledged in behavioural models of pain and pain management, but incorporating these factors into general medical consultations for low back pain (LBP) can be challenging. While there is no compelling evidence that social factors contribute to LBP onset, these factors have been shown to influence functional limitation and disability, especially the effects of organisational support in the workplace, spousal support, family conflict and social disadvantage. A number of barriers exist to address such social factors in routine medical encounters for LBP, but there is emerging evidence that improving social and organisational support may be an effective strategy to reduce the negative lifestyle consequences of LBP. For clinicians to address these factors in LBP treatment requires a clearer psychosocial framework in assessment and screening, more individualised problem-solving efforts, more patient-centred interventions involving family, peers and workplace supports and a less biomechanical and diagnostic approach. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved., Funding Agency:Scan/Design Foundation

Originally the term "yellow flags" was used to describe psychosocial prognostic factors for the development of disability following the onset of musculoskeletal pain. The identification of yellow flags through early screening was expected to prompt the application of intervention guidelines to achieve secondary prevention. In recent conceptualizations of yellow flags, it has been suggested that their range of applicability should be confined primarily to psychological risk factors to differentiate them from other risk factors, such as social and environmental variables. This article addresses 2 specific questions that arise from this development: (1) Can yellow flags influence outcomes in people with acute or subacute low back pain? and (2) Can yellow flags be targeted in interventions to produce better outcomes? Consistent evidence has been found to support the role of various psychological factors in prognosis, although questions remain about which factors are the most important, both individually and in combination, and how they affect outcomes. Published early interventions have reported mixed results, but, overall, the evidence suggests that targeting yellow flags, particularly when they are at high levels, does seem to lead to more consistently positive results than either ignoring them or providing omnibus interventions to people regardless of psychological risk factors. Psychological risk factors for poor prognosis can be identified clinically and addressed within interventions, but questions remain in relation to issues such as timing, necessary skills, content of treatments, and context. In addition, there is still a need to elucidate mechanisms of change and better integrate this understanding into the broader context of secondary prevention of chronic pain and disability.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensus plan for research and practice to encourage routine clinician screening of occupational factors associated with long-term back disability. METHODS: A 3-day conference workshop including 21 leading researchers and clinicians (the "Decade of the Flags Working Group") was held to review the scientific evidence concerning clinical, occupational, and policy factors in back disability and the development of feasible assessment and intervention strategies. RESULTS: The Working Group identified seven workplace variables to include in early screening by clinicians: physical job demands, ability to modify work, job stress, workplace social support or dysfunction, job satisfaction, expectation for resuming work, and fear of re-injury. Five evaluation criteria for screening methods were established: reliability, predictive performance, feasibility, acceptability, and congruence with plausible interventions. An optimal screening method might include a stepped combination of questionnaire, interview, and worksite visit. Future research directions include improving available assessment methods, adopting simpler and more uniform conceptual frameworks, and tying screening results to plausible interventions. DISCUSSION:There is a clear indication that occupational factors influence back disability, but to expand clinician practices in this area will require that patient screening methods show greater conceptual clarity, feasibility, and linkages to viable options for intervention., EArly identification

Aim The aim of this study is to examine the effects of an 8-day university-based training course, aimed at identifying and addressing psychosocial prognostic factors during physiotherapy treatment, in shifting therapists towards a more biopsychosocial orientation as measured by changes in beliefs/attitudes, knowledge, skills and behaviour.MethodWe combined a randomized controlled trail with a pre-post design. Forty-two physiotherapists applied for a university-accredited training course designed to enhance knowledge and management of psychosocial factors in their practice with patients suffering from musculoskeletal pain. The course participants were randomized either to receiving the course or to a waiting list for training. Attitudes and beliefs towards, and knowledge of psychosocial factors, patient vignettes and a video of an imaginary patient were tested before and after training. The patients of the course participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire with background questions at treatment start. The patients also received a questionnaire about the physical therapists' behaviour and patient satisfaction 6 weeks after treatment start.ResultsThe results show that physical therapists' attitudes and believes became more biopsychosocially and less biomedically orientated, they were less convinced that pain justifies disability and limitation of activities, and their knowledge and skills on psychosocial risk factors increased after a university-accredited training course. Yet despite these changes their patients perceived their practice behaviour before and after the course as similar and were equally satisfied with their treatment and treatment result.ConclusionA course, which enhanced biopsychosocial attitudes and beliefs, as well as increased such knowledge and skills did not change the way patients perceived their physical therapists. A future question is whether it improves patient outcome.

Study Design: A prospective survey of patients seeking primary care for low back pain. Clinical and psychosocial data, available at presentation, were explored for predictors of outcome at 1 year. Objectives: To determine the relative value of clinical and psychosocial variables for early identification of patients with a poor prognosis. Summary of Background Data: Current treatment strategies for low back pain have failed to stem the rising levels of disability. Psychosocial factors have been shown to be important determinants of response to therapy in chronic patients, but the contribution from similar data in acute or subchronic patients has not been comprehensively investigated. Methods: Two hundred fifty-two patients with low back pain, presenting to primary care, underwent a structured clinical interview and completed a battery of psychosocial instruments. Follow-up was done by mail at 1 year; outcome was measured using a back pain disability questionnaire. Predictive relationships were sought between the data at presentation and disability at follow-up. Results: Most patients showed improved disability and pain scores, although more than half had persisting symptoms. Eighteen percent showed significant psychological distress at presentation. Multiple regression analysis showed the level of persisting disability to depend principally on measures in the psychosocial domain; for acute cases outcome is also dependent on the absence or presence of a previous history of low back trouble. Discriminant models successfully allocated typically 76% of cases to recovered/not-recovered groups, largely on the basis of psychosocial factors evident at presentation. Conclusions: Early identification of psychosocial problems is important in understanding, and hopefully preventing, the progression to chronicity in low back trouble.

Study Design: A prospective survey of patients seeking primary care for low back pain. Clinical and psychosocial data, available at presentation, were explored for predictors of outcome at 1 year. Objectives: To determine the relative value of clinical and psychosocial variables for early identification of patients with a poor prognosis. Summary of Background Data: Current treatment strategies for low back pain have failed to stem the rising levels of disability. Psychosocial factors have been shown to be important determinants of response to therapy in chronic patients, but the contribution from similar data in acute or subchronic patients has not been comprehensively investigated. Methods: Two hundred fifty-two patients with low back pain, presenting to primary care, underwent a structured clinical interview and completed a battery of psychosocial instruments. Follow-up was done by mail at 1 year; outcome was measured using a back pain disability questionnaire. Predictive relationships were sought between the data at presentation and disability at follow-up. Results: Most patients showed improved disability and pain scores, although more than half had persisting symptoms. Eighteen percent showed significant psychological distress at presentation. Multiple regression analysis showed the level of persisting disability to depend principally on measures in the psychosocial domain; for acute cases outcome is also dependent on the absence or presence of a previous history of low back trouble. Discriminant models successfully allocated typically 76% of cases to recovered/not-recovered groups, largely on the basis of psychosocial factors evident at presentation. Conclusions: Early identification of psychosocial problems is important in understanding, and hopefully preventing, the progression to chronicity in low back trouble.