Background: There is wide variation in activity intolerance for a given musculoskeletal pathophysiology. In other words, people often experience illness beyond what one would expect given their level of pathophysiology. Mental health (i.e., cognitive bias regarding pain [e.g., worst-case thinking] and psychological distress [symptoms of anxiety and depression]) is an important and treatable correlate of pain intensity and activity intolerance that accounts for much of this variation. This study tested the degree to which psychological distress accentuates the role of cognitive bias in the relationship between pain intensity and activity intolerance. Methods: We enrolled 125 adults with musculoskeletal illness in a cross-sectional study. Participants completed measures of activity intolerance related to pain (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Pain Interference Computer Adaptive Test [CAT]) and in general (PROMIS Physical Function CAT]), measures of psychological distress (PROMIS Depression CAT and PROMIS Anxiety CAT), a numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain intensity, measures of pain-related cognitive bias (4-question versions of the Negative Pain Thoughts Questionnaire [NPTQ-4], Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS-4], and Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia [TSK-4]), and a survey of demographic variables. We assessed the relationships of these measures through mediation and moderation analyses using structural equation modeling. Results: Mediation analysis confirmed the large indirect relationship between pain intensity (NRS) and activity intolerance (PROMIS Pain Interference CAT and Physical Function CAT) through cognitive bias. Symptoms of depression and anxiety had an unconditional (consistent) relationship with cognitive bias (NPTQ), but there was no significant conditional effect/moderation (i.e., no increase in the magnitude of the relationship with increasing symptoms of depression and anxiety). Conclusions: Psychological distress accentuates the role of cognitive bias in the relationship between pain intensity and activity intolerance. In other words, misconceptions make humans ill, more so with greater symptoms of depression or anxiety. Orthopaedic surgeons can approach their daily work with the knowledge that addressing common misconceptions and identifying psychological distress as a health improvement opportunity are important aspects of musculoskeletal care. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract

Background Research consistently documents no correlation between the duration of a musculoskeletal specialty care visit and patient experience (perceived empathy of the specialist and satisfaction with care). Based on a combination of clinical experience and other lines of research, we speculate that longer visits are often related to discordance between specialist and patient interpretation of symptoms and weighting of available test and treatment options. If this is true, then the specific duration of time discussing the specialist’s interpretations and options with the patient (expertise transfer) might correlate with satisfaction with care and perceived empathy of the clinician even if the total visit time does not. Questions/purposes (1) What demographic or mental health factors are associated with the duration of expertise transfer? (2) What factors, including the duration of expertise transfer, are associated with the patient’s satisfaction with the visit and perceived clinician empathy? Methods In a cross-sectional study, 128 new and returning English-speaking adult outpatients seeking care from one of three orthopaedic specialists in two urban practices between September and November 2019 were enrolled and agreed to audio recording of the visit. A total of 92% (118) of patients completed the questionnaire and had a usable recording. Participants completed a sociodemographic survey, the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System Depression computer adaptive test (PROMIS Depression CAT; a measure of symptoms of depression), the Short Health Anxiety Index (SHAI-5; a measure of symptoms of hypochondriasis, a form of symptoms misinterpretation), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-4; a measure of misinterpretation of symptoms), an ordinal measure of patient satisfaction (dichotomized into satisfied or not because of strong ceiling effects), and the Jefferson Scale of Patient Perception of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE; a measure of perceived clinician empathy). The duration of expertise transfer and the total duration of the visit were measured by two raters with acceptable reliability using software that facilitates segmentation of the visit audio recording. To determine factors associated with the duration of expertise transfer, satisfaction, and empathy, we planned a multivariable analysis controlling for potential confounding variables identified in exploratory bivariable analysis. However, there were insufficient associations to merit multivariable analysis. Results A longer duration of expertise transfer had a modest correlation with catastrophic thinking (r = 0.24; p = 0.01). Complete satisfaction with the visit was associated with less health anxiety (6 [interquartile range 5 to 7] for complete satisfaction versus 7 [5 to 7] for less than complete satisfaction; p = 0.02) and catastrophic thinking (4 [1 to 7] versus 5 [3 to 11]; p = 0.02), but not with the duration of expertise transfer. Greater perceived clinician empathy had a slight correlation with less health anxiety (r = -0.19; p = 0.04). Conclusion Patients with greater misinterpretation of symptoms experience a slightly less satisfying visit and less empathetic relationship with a musculoskeletal specialist despite a longer duration of expertise transfer. This supports the concept that directive strategies (such as teaching healthy interpretation of symptoms) may be less effective then guiding strategies (such as nurturing openness to alternative, healthier interpretation of symptoms using motivational interviewing tactics, often over more than one visit or point of contact). Level of Evidence Level II, therapeutic study.