Background
Patients frequently seek treatment for chronic nonmalignant pain in primary care settings. Compared with physicians who have completed extensive specialization (eg, fellowships) in pain management, primary care physicians receive much less formal training in managing chronic pain. While chronic pain represents a complicated condition in its own right, the recent increase in opioid prescriptions further muddles treatment. It is unknown whether patients with chronic pain seeking treatment in primary care differ from those seeking treatment in tertiary care settings. This study sought to determine whether patients with chronic pain in primary care reported less pain, fewer psychological variables related to pain, and lower risk of medication misuse/abuse compared with those in tertiary care.
Methods
Data collected from patients with chronic pain in primary care settings and tertiary care settings were analyzed for significant differences using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Fisher exact tests, and linear regression. A host of variables among populations, including demographics, self-reported pain severity, psychological variables related to pain, and risk for opioid misuse and abuse, were compared.
Results
Findings suggest that primary care patients with chronic pain were similar to those in tertiary care on a host of indices and reported more severe pain. There were no significant group differences for risk of medication misuse or abuse.
Conclusion
It seems that primary care physicians care for a complicated group of patients with chronic pain that rivals the complexity of those seen in specialized tertiary care pain management facilities.
Physicians are commonly reported to die by suicide more frequently than individuals in the general population. Thus far, few reasons for this elevated suicide risk have been empirically investigated. Although the interpersonal psychological theory of suicidal behavior (IPTS) has been suggested as a fruitful means of explaining physician suicidality, it has yet to be examined quantitatively. Four hundred nineteen Pennsylvania physicians were assessed on a number of demographics, as well as all components of the IPTS. Findings indicated that physician scores on IPTS components are comparable to other groups displaying increased suicidality (e.g., military populations, prior attempters). Perceived burdensomeness was a significant predictor of suicidal ideation, while thwarted belongingness predicted prior suicide attempts. Acquired capability did not distinguish between prior attempters and nonattempters. Preliminary findings indicate the IPTS may be a useful framework for understanding and predicting physician suicidality.
Limitations of this study include the use of cross-sectional data and self-report measures. These results, in combination with existing models of habituation, suggest ACS may not progress linearly.
While the WALI provides a fruitful means of gathering clinical information, results suggested no association between scores on Section H of the WALI and weight loss. The results suggest that EE may impact surgical outcomes differentially in men as compared to women. Future research should seek to replicate these findings and focus on gender differences related to surgical outcomes.
Little is known about which specific weight management skills bariatric patients find most and least valuable. Participants completed a measure assessing their usage of weight management skills at a follow-up appointment one or more years after undergoing bariatric surgery. Decreased usage of skills was associated with unsuccessful weight outcome, defined as losing less than 50% of excess weight, as well as weight regain. Weighing regularly was the skill selected most often by successful participants as helpful, and was chosen by a significantly smaller percentage of unsuccessful participants and those who regained a clinically significant amount of weight. A majority of both successful and unsuccessful participants indicated that they had discontinued food journaling. Weighing regularly may be perceived as a more useful method of self-monitoring.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.