No abstract

Objective This systematic review aimed to 1) assess associations between psychological factors and pain after breast cancer (BC) treatment and 2) determine which preoperative psychological factors predicted pain in the acute, subacute, and chronic time frames after BC surgery. Design A systematic review with meta-analysis. Subjects Women with early-stage BC. Methods The Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched between 1990 and January 2019. Studies that evaluated psychological factors and pain after surgery for early-stage BC were included. Associations between psychological factors and pain, from early after surgery to >12 months after surgery, were extracted. Effect size correlations (r equivalents) were calculated and pooled by using random-effects meta-analysis models. Results Of 4,137 studies, 47 were included (n = 15,987 participants; 26 studies ≤12 months after surgery and 22 studies >12 months after surgery). The majority of the studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Higher preoperative anxiety and depression were weak but significant predictors of pain at all time points up to 12 months (r equivalent: 0.15–0.22). Higher preoperative pain catastrophizing and distress were also weak but significant predictors of pain during the acute (0–7 days) and chronic (3–12 months) periods (r equivalent: 0.10–0.20). For the period >12 months after surgery, weak but significant cross-sectional associations with pain were identified for anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, and distress (r equivalents: 0.15, 0.17, 0.25, 0.14, respectively). Conclusion Significant pooled effect size correlations between psychological factors and pain were identified across all time frames. Though weak, these associations should encourage assessment of key psychological factors during preoperative screening and pain assessments at all postoperative time frames.

No abstract

Participation rates increase post-surgery when recovery is stable, but approximately one-third of arthroplasty recipients do not engage in PA at least once per week. As participation is associated with habitual activity pre-surgery, a potential role for behaviour change interventions is suggested. That non-ambulatory activities increase indicates current devices measuring ambulatory activity alone are inadequate for capturing PA. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background: Effective rehabilitation should include high levels of physical activity. The impact of the environmental design on activity levels has had minimal consideration. Purpose: This study investigates activity levels of inpatients undergoing rehabilitation in a new rehabilitation facility with innovative design and multidisciplinary care, comparing weekday and weekend activity levels, as well as changes over a 12-month period. Method: An observational study reporting participants’ location, people present, body position, and activity type on 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day using behavior mapping techniques. Fifteen participants were observed in a mixed rehabilitation unit with neurological, orthopedic, and other health conditions. Results: Results were calculated as the proportion of observations participants spent in each location, position, and performing activities (physical, cognitive, social), and time spent alone and inactive. On average, participants were engaged in activity for 86% (standard deviation [ SD] = 9) of the day, with physical activity accounting for 51% ( SD = 11), cognitive activity 28% ( SD = 10), and social activity 42% ( SD = 16). There was more physical activity (mean difference [ MD] 8% absolute, confidence interval [CI] = [4, 12], p < .01) and less social activity ( MD −6% absolute, CI [−11, −1], p = .02) on weekdays compared to weekends. Overall, participants were alone and inactive for 12% ( SD = 9) of the day. Participants observed in 2016 displayed similar results to those observed in 2015. Conclusion: High levels of activity were achieved in this facility that underwent environmental redesign, construction of new facilities, and implementation of evidence-based strategies.