STUDY DESIGN: Prospective survey. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of use of presurgical psychological screening (PPS) among spine surgeons in the United States, identify factors associated with PPS use, evaluate surgeons' opinions of PPS, and investigate how PPS is applied in clinical practice. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends PPS for patients undergoing back surgery. The prevalence of PPS is unknown. Thus, it may be difficult to improve preoperative care for such patients with psychological conditions. METHODS: An online survey invitation was emailed to 340 spine surgeons. Questions addressed surgeon characteristics (eg, number of years in practice), practice characteristics (eg, practice type), inclusion of integrated rehabilitation and psychological services, and use of PPS. The impact of psychological factors on rehabilitation and recovery was assessed using an 11-point Likert scale (0, no impact; 10, highest impact). We analyzed the 110 (32%) responses with a χ(2) test (significance, P<0.05). RESULTS: PPS was used by 37% (41) to screen for depression (100%) or anxiety (85%). PPS use was highest among surgeons with more experience, higher annual volume, and no university affiliation. Among those screening for fear avoidance, use was highest among surgeons more recently entering the field. Surgeons reported a strong belief regarding the impact of psychological factors on pain relief, adherence to therapy, and return to work (mean impact rating, >7.0); however, impact on return for follow-up was only moderate (mean rating, 5.8). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of surgeons reported using PPS. Surgeons were less likely to use PPS if they had completed residency or begun practice within 14 years, had fewer than 200 cases annually, or were university affiliated. This study highlights the need to advocate for the use of North American Spine Society guidelines regarding the use of PPS.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective survey. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of use of presurgical psychological screening (PPS) among spine surgeons in the United States, identify factors associated with PPS use, evaluate surgeons' opinions of PPS, and investigate how PPS is applied in clinical practice. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends PPS for patients undergoing back surgery. The prevalence of PPS is unknown. Thus, it may be difficult to improve preoperative care for such patients with psychological conditions. METHODS: An online survey invitation was emailed to 340 spine surgeons. Questions addressed surgeon characteristics (eg, number of years in practice), practice characteristics (eg, practice type), inclusion of integrated rehabilitation and psychological services, and use of PPS. The impact of psychological factors on rehabilitation and recovery was assessed using an 11-point Likert scale (0, no impact; 10, highest impact). We analyzed the 110 (32%) responses with a χ(2) test (significance, P<0.05). RESULTS:PPS was used by 37% (41) to screen for depression (100%) or anxiety (85%). PPS use was highest among surgeons with more experience, higher annual volume, and no university affiliation. Among those screening for fear avoidance, use was highest among surgeons more recently entering the field. Surgeons reported a strong belief regarding the impact of psychological factors on pain relief, adherence to therapy, and return to work (mean impact rating, >7.0); however, impact on return for follow-up was only moderate (mean rating, 5.8). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of surgeons reported using PPS. Surgeons were less likely to use PPS if they had completed residency or begun practice within 14 years, had fewer than 200 cases annually, or were university affiliated. This study highlights the need to advocate for the use of North American Spine Society guidelines regarding the use of PPS.
Authors: Stephen Lyman; Luke S Oh; Keith R Reinhardt; Lisa A Mandl; Jeffrey N Katz; Bruce A Levy; Robert G Marx Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Rebecca Laudicina; JoAnn P Fenn; Vickie Freeman; Carol McCoy; Mary Ann McLane; Lillian Mundt; Joan Polancic; Tim Randolph; Kristy Shanahan Journal: Clin Lab Sci Date: 2011
Authors: Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Ton Kuijpers; Petra Jellema; Geert J M G van der Heijden; Lex M Bouter Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2006-08-17 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: W M Seekles; P Cuijpers; P van de Ven; B W J H Penninx; P F M Verhaak; A T F Beekman; A van Straten Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Stijn J Willems; Michel W Coppieters; Servan Rooker; Martijn W Heymans; Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 3.241