Search

Background: Resilience is a developing concept in relation to pain, but has not yet been reviewed in return-to-work (RTW) contexts., Aims: To explore the role of resilience enhancement in promoting work participation for chronic pain sufferers, by reviewing the effectiveness of existing interventions., Methods: Resilience was operationalized as: self-efficacy, active coping, positive affect, positive growth, positive reinforcement, optimism, purpose in life and acceptance. Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) whose interventions included an element of resilience designed to help RTW/staying at work for chronic pain sufferers. Study appraisal comprised the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and additional quality assessment. Findings were synthesized narratively and between-group differences of outcomes were reported. Heterogeneous PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) elements precluded meta-analysis., Results: Thirty-four papers from 24 RCTs were included. Interventions varied; most were multidisciplinary, combining behavioural, physical and psychological pain management and vocational rehabilitation. Four found RTW/staying at work improved with intensive multidisciplinary interventions compared with less intensive, or no, treatment. Of these, one had low RoB; three scored poorly on allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Four trials had mixed results, e.g. interventions enabling reduced sick leave for people on short-term not long-term leave; 16 showed no improvement. Five trials reported resilience outcomes were improved by interventions but these were not always trials in which RTW improved., Conclusions: Effectiveness of resilience interventions for chronic pain sufferers on RTW is uncertain and not as helpful as anticipated. Further agreement on its conceptualization and terminology and that of RTW is needed., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The UK government is promoting the health benefits of work, in order to change doctors' and patients' behaviour and reduce sickness absence. The rationale is that many people 'off sick' would have better outcomes by staying at work; but reducing the costs of health care and benefits is also an imperative. Replacement of the 'sick note' with the 'fit note' and a national educational programme are intended to reduce sickness-certification rates, but how will these initiatives impact on doctor-patient relationships and the existing tension between the doctor as patient advocate and gate-keeper to services and benefits? This tension is particularly acute for problems like chronic pain where diagnosis, prognosis and work capacity can be unclear. We interviewed 13 doctors and 30 chronic pain patients about their experiences of negotiating medical certification for work absence and their views of the new policies. Our findings highlight the limitations of naïve rationalist approaches to judgements of work absence and fitness for work for people with chronic pain. Moral, socio-cultural and practical factors are invoked by doctors and patients to contest decisions, and although both groups support the fit note's focus on capacity, they doubt it will overcome tensions in the consultation. Doctors value tacit skills of persuasion and negotiation that can change how patients conceptualise their illness and respond to it. Policy-makers increasingly recognise the role of this tacit knowledge and we conclude that sick-listing can be improved by further developing these skills and acknowledging the structural context within which protagonists negotiate sick-listing., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Background: Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), a form of cognitive-behavioral therapy, may help meet a need for accessible and cost-effective treatments for chronic pain. ACT has a growing evidence base, but has not yet been tested within general practice settings., Aim: The purpose of the present study was to examine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial of ACT in general practice., Methods: A total of 481 potential participants with chronic pain identified from general practice in southwest England were invited into a treatment trial. Subsequently, 102 (21.2%) of those invited were screened, and 73 (71.6%) of those screened were allocated to ACT plus usual care or usual care alone. The ACT treatment included four, four-hour group-based sessions over two weeks., Results: Twenty-six (70.3%) of the patients allocated to ACT attended three or four sessions. Those who received ACT rated it as credible in a short survey, with Mdn rating 7.0 on a 0-10 scale, across five credibility items. During a post-treatment interview considering 12 aspects of the study from invitation to treatment termination, a median of 79.2% of participants rated the aspects 'acceptable.' Qualitative data from the interviews showed a mixed picture of patient experiences, revealing possible tensions between patients' wishes to avoid discomfort and confusion, and treatment methods that explicitly ask patients to, in essence, 'live with' some discomfort and confusion., Conclusions: These data suggest that further study of ACT, as a treatment for chronic pain, is feasible in general practice and it may be possible to further optimize the treatment experience.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to engage stakeholders in the development of a community based chronic pain-management service and identify their different agendas for service design and delivery., Design/methodology/approach: Data were collected using the Nominal Group Technique (NGT), a ten-step process that generates qualitative and quantitative data. Seven NGT groups were conducted in the south-west region of the UK, three with General Practitioners and nurses, three with chronic pain patients, and one with Healthcare Commissioners., Findings: The patient agenda for service development focused on process of care issues particularly the need for deep- empathy and emotional support from providers, while professionals prioritised cost-effectiveness. While there was some overlap between agendas they were largely discrete and often contradictory., Research Limitations/implications: - The findings imply service planners will need to make trade-offs between cost-containment and patient satisfaction. The methodology did not allow trade-offs to be put to participants in a structured form. However, such techniques are available, for example, Conjoint Analysis. There may also be value in bringing together patients and professionals in joint focus groups, to see if the gap between their different agendas can be bridged through discussion., Originality/value: The findings provide a novel insight into the competing agendas of patients and professionals regarding service development and design which will be of value to service planners and managers as they strive to reconcile these differences.

In this methodological paper, we discuss the use of the nominal group technique to facilitate the involvement of people with chronic pain and other stakeholder groups in the design of a community-based pain management programme. On the basis of our experiences of using the technique in a study conducted in the south-west region of the UK, we explore conceptual and logistical issues relating to patient involvement in health service development, discuss political issues relating to the articulation and synthesis of different stakeholder perspectives, and provide a description of how the technique can be applied in the aforementioned context. We conclude that although the nominal group technique is not a panacea for the difficulties encountered in patient involvement, it does offer advantages over other approaches., (Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The sickness certification and return to work (RTW) of people with chronic pain are important health and economic issues for employees, employers, taxpayers and the UK government. The 'fit note' and a national educational programme promoting RTW were introduced in 2010 to curb rising rates of sickness absence., Aims: To investigate employers' and employees' experiences of managing RTW when someone has taken sick leave for chronic pain and to explore the perceived efficacy of the fit note., Methods: A qualitative study, comprising semi-structured interviews with employers who had managed sick leave cases and employees who had experienced sick leave for chronic pain. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and the data analysed using constructivist grounded theory principles., Results: Five themes were elicited. Firstly, frequent enquiry after health status was seen as intrusive by some employees but part of good practice by employers and acknowledging this difference was useful. Secondly, being able to trust employees due to their performance track record was helpful for employers when dealing with complex chronic pain conditions. Thirdly, feeling valued increased employees' motivation to RTW. Fourthly, guidelines about maintaining contact with absent employees were useful if used flexibly. Finally, both parties valued the fit note for its positive language, interrogative format and biomedical authority., Conclusions: The fit note was perceived to be helpful if used in combination with other strategies for managing sick leave and RTW for people with chronic pain. These strategies may be applicable to other fluctuating, long-term conditions with medically unexplained elements.

Theoretical frameworks provide generalised accounts of illness action although empirical studies of the process are still in short supply. This study of upper limb pain provided a case study of illness action; as it is a common condition, there is uncertainty about its treatment and management, orthodox and non-orthodox care are seen as legitimate sources of help and it is linked with a range of causes. Face-to-face informal interviews were carried out with 47 informants with upper limb pain and their practitioners ( n= 19). The data were analysed in two different ways. The general stages of the illness action process were identified through a descriptive analysis of the upper limb pain sufferers’ accounts and the policies and practices reported by their practitioners. Then, case studies were constructed to depict individual pathways through healthcare and consequences for sufferers. The illness action process was characterised by the normalisation and accommodation of pain informed by a discourse that predominantly invoked ageing and the wear and tear of the body. Practitioners also preferred to adopt a biomechanical approach and were reluctant to attribute psychosocial labels. The case studies illustrated the divergent, negotiated and opportunistic nature of the process and showed that the use of both orthodox and non-orthodox care formed only part of strategies used to manage upper limb pain. Sufferers evaluated the care they received in terms of pain alleviation, and were resigned to searching for the best way of living with their pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]