In the context of uncertainty about aetiology and prognosis, good clinical practice commonly recommends both affective (creating rapport, showing empathy) and cognitive reassurance (providing explanations and education) to increase self-management in groups with nonspecific pain conditions. The specific impact of each of these components in reference to patients' outcomes has not been studied. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the evidence from prospective cohorts in primary care that measured patient-practitioner interactions with reference to patient outcomes. We carried out a systematic literature search and appraisal of study methodology. We extracted measures of affective and cognitive reassurance in consultations and their associations with consultation exit and follow-up measures of patients' outcomes. We identified 16 studies from 16,059 abstracts. Eight studies were judged to be high in methodological quality. Pooling could not be achieved as a result of heterogeneity of samples and measures. Affective reassurance showed inconsistent findings with consultation exit outcomes. In 3 high-methodology studies, an association was found between affective reassurance and higher symptom burden and less improvement at follow-up. Cognitive reassurance was associated with higher satisfaction and enablement and reduced concerns directly after the consultations in 8 studies; with improvement in symptoms at follow-up in 7 studies; and with reduced health care utilization in 3 studies. Despite limitations, there is support for the notion that cognitive reassurance is more beneficial than affective reassurance. We present a tentative model based on these findings and propose priorities for future research.

BackgroundReassurance is commonly recommended in guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care, although it is poorly defined, and what it means to patients remains unknown. AimTo explore how patients with low back pain perceive practitioners' reassuring behaviours during consultations. Design and settingQualitative study undertaken with patients from nine GP surgeries in Northamptonshire, England. MethodTwenty-three patients who had recently consulted for non-specific low back pain were recruited from general practice. Semistructured interviews explored what they had found reassuring during their consultations and the effect of such reassurance since their consultations. Interview transcripts were analysed using the thematic framework method. ResultsPatients each brought to their consultations experiences, beliefs, expectations, and concerns that they wanted the doctor to hear and understand. They were reassured implicitly when it seemed the doctor was taking them seriously and wanted to help; this was also achieved through relationship building and feeling that the GP was readily available to them. However, it was only explicit, informational reassurance that directly addressed patients' concerns by providing them with explanations ruling out serious disease, and helped them to understand and cope with their pain. ConclusionThe themes of implicit and explicit reassurance uncovered here correspond with ideas of affective and cognitive reassurance, respectively. Although the findings support the use of information and education to alleviate concerns, the role of implicit reassurance through relationship building and empathy remains less clear. The impact of these behaviours on outcomes should form a priority for future research.Keywords back pain; general practice; low back pain; physician-patient relations.

BackgroundReassurance from physicians is commonly recommended in guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP), but the process of reassurance and its impact on patients is poorly researched.We aimed to develop a valid and reliable measure of the process of reassurance during LBP consultations.MethodsItems representing the data-gathering stage of the consultation and affective and cognitive reassurance were generated from literature on physician-patient communication and piloted with expert researchers and physicians, a Patient and Public Involvement group, and LBP patients to form a questionnaire. Patients presenting for LBP at 43 General Practice surgeries were sent the questionnaire. The questionnaire was analysed with Rasch modelling, using two samples from the same population of recent LBP consultations: the first (n = 157, follow-up n = 84) for exploratory analysis and the second (n = 162, follow-up n = 74) for confirmatory testing. Responses to the questionnaire were compared with responses to satisfaction and enablement scales to assess the external validity of the items, and participants completed the questionnaire again one-week later to assess test-retest reliability.ResultsThe questionnaire was separated into four subscales: data-gathering, relationship-building, generic reassurance, and cognitive reassurance, each containing three items. All subscales showed good validity within the Rasch models, and good reliability based on person- and item-separations and test-retest reliability. All four subscales were significantly positively correlated with satisfaction and enablement for both samples. The final version of the questionnaire is presented here.ConclusionsOverall, the measure has demonstrated a good level of validity and generally acceptable reliability. This is the first measure to focus specifically on reassurance for LBP in primary care settings, and will enable researchers to further understanding of what is reassuring within the context of low back pain consultations, and how outcomes are affected by different types of reassurance. Additionally, the measure may provide a useful training and audit tool for physicians. The new measure requires testing in prospective cohorts, and would benefit from further validation against ethnographic observation of consultations in real time.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.