Search

Patient and stakeholder engagements in research have increasingly gained attention in healthcare and healthcare-related research. A common and rigorous approach to establish research priorities based on input from people and stakeholders is the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA-PSP). The aim of this study was to establish research priorities for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain by engaging with people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives to people living with chronic MSK pain, healthcare professionals (HCP), and researchers working with chronic MSK pain. This JLA-PSP included a nation-wide survey in Denmark, an interim prioritisation, and an online consensus building workshop. The information gained from this was the basis for developing the final list of specific research priorities within chronic MSK pain. In the initial survey, 1010 respondents (91% people living with chronic MSK pain/relatives, 9% HCPs/researchers) submitted 3121 potential questions. These were summarised into 19 main themes and 36 sub-themes. In the interim prioritisation exercise, 51% people living with pain/relatives and 49% HCPs/researchers reduced the list to 33 research questions prior to the final priority setting workshop. 23 participants attended the online workshop (12 people/relatives, 10 HCPs, and 1 researcher) who reached consensus for the most important research priorities after two rounds of discussion of each question. This study identified several specific research questions generated by people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives, HCPs, and researchers. The stakeholders proposed prioritization of the healthcare system's ability to support patients, focus on developing coherent pathways between sectors and education for both patients and HCP. These research questions can form the basis for future studies, funders, and be used to align research with end-users' priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To examine the effect of motor activity on the magnitude and duration of altered corticomotor output following experimental muscle pain. Design. Experimental, pre-post test. Setting. University laboratory. Subjects. Twenty healthy individuals. Methods. Participants were randomly allocated to a Rest or Movement group. The Rest group sat quietly without moving for the duration of the experiment. The Movement group repeated a unimanual pattern of five sequential keystrokes as quickly and as accurately as possible immediately following the resolution of pain. Pain was induced into the right extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle by a bolus injection of 0.5mL hypertonic saline. Corticomotor output was assessed as motor evoked potentials in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation before, immediately after and at 10, 20, and 30 minutes following pain resolution. Pain intensity was recorded every 30 seconds using an 11-point numerical rating scale. Results. There was no difference in peak pain intensity (P< 0.09) or duration (P < 0.2) between groups. Corticomotor output was reduced in both groups (P< 0.002) at 10 minutes (P< 0.002), 20 minutes (P< 0.02) and 30 minutes (P< 0.037) following the resolution of pain relative to baseline. There was no difference between groups at any time point. Conclusions. Performance of motor activity immediately following the resolution of acute muscle pain did not alter the magnitude or duration of corticomotor depression. Understanding corticomotor depression in the postpain period and what factors promote recovery has relevance for clinical pain syndromes where ongoing motor dysfunction, in the absence of pain, may predispose to symptom persistence or recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Digital pain mapping allows for remote and ecological momentary assessment in patients over multiple time points spanning days to months. Frequent ecological assessments may reveal tendencies and fluctuations more clearly and provide insights into the trajectory of a patient's pain.Objective: The primary aim of this study is to remotely map and track the intensity and distribution of pain and discomfort (eg, burning, aching, and tingling) in patients with nonmalignant spinal referred pain over 12 weeks using a web-based app for digital pain mapping. The secondary aim is to explore the barriers of use by determining the differences in clinical and user characteristics between patients with good (regular users) and poor (nonregular users) reporting compliance.Methods: Patients (N=91; n=53 women) with spinal referred pain were recruited using web-based and traditional in-house strategies. Patients were asked to submit weekly digital pain reports for 12 weeks. Each pain report consisted of digital pain drawings on a pseudo-three-dimensional body chart and pain intensity ratings. The pain drawings captured the distribution of pain and discomfort (pain quality descriptors) expressed as the total extent and location. Differences in weekly pain reports were explored using the total extent (pixels), current and usual pain intensity ratings, frequency of quality descriptor selection, and Jaccard similarity index. Validated e-questionnaires were completed at baseline to determine the patients' characteristics (adapted Danish National Spine Register), disability (Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index), and pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale) profiles. Barriers of use were assessed at 6 weeks using a health care-related usability and acceptance e-questionnaire and a self-developed technology-specific e-questionnaire to assess the accessibility and ease of access of the pain mapping app. Associations between total extent, pain intensity, disability, and catastrophizing were explored to further understand pain. Differences between regular and nonregular users were assessed to understand the pain mapping app reporting compliance.Results: Fluctuations were identified in pain reports for total extent and pain intensity ratings (P<.001). However, quality descriptor selection (P=.99) and pain drawing (P=.49), compared using the Jaccard index, were similar over time. Interestingly, current pain intensity was greater than usual pain intensity (P<.001), suggesting that the timing of pain reporting coincided with a more intense pain experience than usual. Usability and acceptance were similar between regular and nonregular users. Regular users were younger (P<.001) and reported a larger total extent of pain than nonregular users (P<.001).Conclusions: This is the first study to examine digital reports of pain intensity and distribution in patients with nonmalignant spinal referred pain remotely for a sustained period and barriers of use and compliance using a digital pain mapping app. Differences in age, pain distribution, and current pain intensity may influence reporting behavior and compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractObjectiveMethodResultsConclusionsThis scoping review aimed to map existing literature and whether clinical guidelines recommend taking other health conditions into consideration in spinal pain management.Systematic searches covered PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library, alongside free-text online searches for clinical practice guidelines on spinal pain. Eligibility criteria encompassed studies on spinal pain with one or more chronic conditions. Study design, population, aim, outcome measurements, and findings of the included studies were summarised. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and quality. Clinical practice guideline recommendations regarding multimorbidity were summarised.The review included five studies. One study showed that addressing other health conditions in spinal pain management improved psychological comorbidities, pain, and disability. The other studies showed no consistent additional benefits but suggested a trend towards improved pain-related disability. Analysis of 23 clinical practice guidelines revealed minimal consideration of other health conditions in spinal pain management.The sparse literature and limited consideration challenge clinical practice, where spinal pain often occurs in parallel with other health conditions, leaving healthcare providers with limited guidance. This review highlights the need for more research to inform future clinical guidelines for spinal pain in patients with other concurrent health conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]