How Well Do You Expect to Recover, and What Does Recovery Mean, Anyway? Qualitative Study of Expectations After a Musculoskeletal Injury

Carroll, Linda; Lis, Angela; Weiser, Sherri; Torti, Jacqueline

doi:10.2522/ptj.20150229

Cited by 39 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Healthcare professionals should use the self-rated recovery question to measure recovery: "How well do you feel you are recovering from your injuries?" (Carroll, Lis, Weiser, & Torti, 2016;Fischer, Stewart, Bloch, Lorig, & Laurent, 1999 improved, (c) slightly improved, (d) no change, (e) slightly worse, (f) much worse and (g) worse than ever. Patients reporting to be "completely better" or "much improved" should be considered recovered.…”

Section: Reevaluation and Dischargementioning

confidence: 94%

“…Patients should be discharged as soon as they report significant recovery. Healthcare professionals should use the self‐rated recovery question to measure recovery: “How well do you feel you are recovering from your injuries?” (Carroll, Lis, Weiser, & Torti, ; Fischer, Stewart, Bloch, Lorig, & Laurent, ). The response options include (a) completely better, (b) much improved, (c) slightly improved, (d) no change, (e) slightly worse, (f) much worse and (g) worse than ever.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients reporting to be “completely better” or “much improved” should be considered recovered. The self‐rated recovery question is a valid and reliable global measure of recovery in patients with headaches (Carroll et al, ; Fischer et al, ). Patients who have not recovered should follow the care pathway outlined in the guideline (Figures , and ).…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Non‐pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration

Côté

Shearer

et al. 2019

European Journal of Pain

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To develop an evidence‐based guideline for the non‐pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain (i.e., tension‐type or cervicogenic). Methods This guideline is based on systematic reviews of high‐quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of clinical benefits, cost‐effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with persistent headaches associated with neck pain. Results When managing patients with headaches associated with neck pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies, or migraine as the cause of headaches; (b) classify headaches associated with neck pain as tension‐type headache or cervicogenic headache once other sources of headache pathology has been ruled out; (c) provide care in partnership with the patient and involve the patient in care planning and decision making; (d) provide care in addition to structured patient education; (e) consider low‐load endurance craniocervical and cervicoscapular exercises for tension‐type headaches (episodic or chronic) or cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration; (f) consider general exercise, multimodal care (spinal mobilization, craniocervical exercise and postural correction) or clinical massage for chronic tension‐type headaches; (g) do not offer manipulation of the cervical spine as the sole form of treatment for episodic or chronic tension‐type headaches; (h) consider manual therapy (manipulation with or without mobilization) to the cervical and thoracic spine for cervicogenic headaches >3 months duration. However, there is no added benefit in combining spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization and exercises; and (i) reassess the patient at every visit to assess outcomes and determine whether a referral is indicated. Conclusions Our evidence‐based guideline provides recommendations for the conservative management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires validation. Significance Neck pain and headaches are very common comorbidities in the population. Tension‐type and cervicogenic headaches can be treated effectively with specific exercises. Manual therapy can be considered as an adjunct therapy to exercise to treat patients with cervicogenic headaches. The management of tension‐type and cervicogenic headaches should be patient‐centred.

show abstract

Section: Reevaluation and Dischargementioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non‐pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration

Côté

Shearer

et al. 2019

European Journal of Pain

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also a reasonable assumption that patient expectations and preference for a specific treatment are closely related, however involve complex interactions that require further investigation through adequately powered studies 16,17. These findings also reinforce the important role health care providers have when communicating clinical decision-making processes with patients in regard to expected outcomes and personal preferences as conflicts have potential to influence outcomes 14,15,18…”

Section: Treatment Preference and Experienced Pain Reliefmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…These data extend previous work by Cook et al8 to demonstrate that a provider who provides a manual therapy intervention that he or she prefers (and may also have high treatment expectations for, although not directly assessed in this study) may positively influence pain relief. The positive influences from the providers may be in the form of nonspecific effects (e.g., communication with patients) or potentially may be linked to prior provider experiences, both of which have strong potential for driving patient expectations for a specific treatment 14,15. It is also a reasonable assumption that patient expectations and preference for a specific treatment are closely related, however involve complex interactions that require further investigation through adequately powered studies 16,17.…”

Section: Treatment Preference and Experienced Pain Reliefmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of clinical equipoise and patient preferences on outcomes of conservative manual interventions for spinal pain: an experimental study

Bishop¹,

Bialosky²,

Penza³

et al. 2017

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundExpected pain relief from treatment is associated with positive clinical outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Less studied is the influence on outcomes related to the preference of patients and providers for a specific treatment.ObjectivesWe sought to determine how provider and patient preferences for a manual therapy intervention influenced outcomes in individuals with acutely induced low back pain (LBP).Participants and methodsPain-free participants were randomly assigned to one of two manual therapies (joint biased [JB] or constant touch [CT]) 48 hours after completing an exercise protocol to induce LBP. Expectations for pain relief and preferences for treatment were collected at baseline, prior to randomization. Pain relief was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale. All study procedures were conducted in a private testing laboratory at the University of Florida campus.ResultsSixty participants were included in this study. After controlling for preintervention pain intensity, the multivariate model included only preintervention pain (B=0.12, p=0.07) and provider preference (B=3.05, p<0.0001) and explained 35.8% of the variance in postintervention pain. When determining whether a participant met his or her expected pain relief, receiving an intervention from a provider with a strong preference for that intervention increased the odds of meeting a participant’s expected pain relief 68.3 times (p=0.013) compared to receiving any intervention from a provider with no preference. Receiving JB intervention from any provider increased the odds of meeting expected relief 29.7 times (p=0.023). The effect of a participant receiving an intervention they preferred was retained in the model but did not meet the criteria for a significant contribution.ConclusionOur primary findings were that participant and provider preferences for treatment positively influence pain outcomes in individuals with acutely induced LBP, and joint-biased interventions resulted in a greater chance of meeting participants’ expected outcomes. This is contrary to our hypothesis that the interaction of receiving an intervention for which a participant had a preference would result in the best outcome.

show abstract

How Should the Recovery Process Be Shared Between Patients and Clinicians?

Phelan

Politi

2020

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Illness and injury often entail lasting health and social consequences beyond the acute event. During the immediate and long-term recovery period, consequences of illness or injury can often be mitigated and addressed. As patients and their clinicians discuss care decisions, whether for initial or ongoing management of illness or injury, they must consider patients' personal goals of recovery alongside possible clinical outcomes to choose the best path forward. Understanding the recovery process and patients' and clinicians' decision making requires clarifying the concept of recovery and its significance. This article will describe how shared decision making can support the recovery process using a case example of brachial plexus injury.

show abstract

How Well Do You Expect to Recover, and What Does Recovery Mean, Anyway? Qualitative Study of Expectations After a Musculoskeletal Injury

Cited by 39 publications

References 53 publications

Non‐pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration

Non‐pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration

The influence of clinical equipoise and patient preferences on outcomes of conservative manual interventions for spinal pain: an experimental study

How Should the Recovery Process Be Shared Between Patients and Clinicians?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About