Background: Variation in pain intensity and magnitude of disability among patients with musculoskeletal illness is largely accounted for by variations in symptoms of depression, catastrophic thinking, and heightened illness concern. It is possible that patients with greater stress, distress, and less effective coping strategies might be more likely to seek the use of Complementary Health Approaches (CHA). This study addressed the primary null hypothesis that there are no demographic, illness-related, or psychological factors associated with CHA use among patients with upper extremity illness. Methods: A cohort of 170 patients completed a web-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) questionnaire the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression and Pain Interference questionnaires. We evaluated differences between patients who sought CAM treatment regarding the PROMIS Pain Interference and PROMIS Depression scores. Ninety-four patients (56%) use or plan to use CAM treatment. A CAM provider was consulted by 61 patients (37%): most commonly a massage therapist (30/61), chiropractor (26/61), or acupuncturist (14/61). Results: In bivariate analysis patients who sought CAM reported greater average PROMIS Pain Interference than those who did not. In multivariable logistic regression, CAM use was associated with a higher Pain Interference Score and the specific surgeon. Conclusion: In conclusion, CHA use is prevalent amongst orthopaedic patients and associated with less effective coping strategies. Orthopaedic surgeons might consider asking patients about CHA use and determining whether those patients are interested in cognitive behavioral therapy.
Background: Variation in pain intensity and magnitude of disability among patients with musculoskeletal illness is largely accounted for by variations in symptoms of depression, catastrophic thinking, and heightened illness concern. It is possible that patients with greater stress, distress, and less effective coping strategies might be more likely to seek the use of Complementary Health Approaches (CHA). This study addressed the primary null hypothesis that there are no demographic, illness-related, or psychological factors associated with CHA use among patients with upper extremity illness. Methods: A cohort of 170 patients completed a web-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) questionnaire the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression and Pain Interference questionnaires. We evaluated differences between patients who sought CAM treatment regarding the PROMIS Pain Interference and PROMIS Depression scores. Ninety-four patients (56%) use or plan to use CAM treatment. A CAM provider was consulted by 61 patients (37%): most commonly a massage therapist (30/61), chiropractor (26/61), or acupuncturist (14/61). Results: In bivariate analysis patients who sought CAM reported greater average PROMIS Pain Interference than those who did not. In multivariable logistic regression, CAM use was associated with a higher Pain Interference Score and the specific surgeon. Conclusion: In conclusion, CHA use is prevalent amongst orthopaedic patients and associated with less effective coping strategies. Orthopaedic surgeons might consider asking patients about CHA use and determining whether those patients are interested in cognitive behavioral therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
biopsychosocial model of illness; complementary and alternative medicine; orthopaedic surgery; pain interference; upper extremity illness
Authors: Dagmar Amtmann; Karon F Cook; Mark P Jensen; Wen-Hung Chen; Seung Choi; Dennis Revicki; David Cella; Nan Rothrock; Francis Keefe; Leigh Callahan; Jin-Shei Lai Journal: Pain Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Katherine Beissner; Charles R Henderson; Maria Papaleontiou; Yelena Olkhovskaya; Janet Wigglesworth; M C Reid Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2009-03-06
Authors: C C Hack; L Häberle; S Y Brucker; W Janni; B Volz; C R Loehberg; A D Hartkopf; C-B Walter; G Baake; A Fridman; W Malter; R Wuerstlein; N Harbeck; O Hoffmann; S Kuemmel; B Martin; C Thomssen; H Graf; C Wolf; M P Lux; C M Bayer; C Rauh; K Almstedt; P Gass; F Heindl; T Brodkorb; L Willer; C Lindner; H-C Kolberg; P Krabisch; M Weigel; D Steinfeld-Birg; A Kohls; C Brucker; V Schulz; G Fischer; V Pelzer; B Rack; M W Beckmann; T Fehm; A Rody; N Maass; A Hein; P A Fasching; N Nabieva Journal: Breast Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 4.380