New! Awesome! Better! (Learning a new approach)

With all the attention being given to cognitive functional therapy (and deservedly so, IMHO) it’s tempting to leap aboard the modality train and go take a course, isn’t it?

Although I’ve picked on CFT today, it could just as easily have been any of the New! Awesome! Better! therapies that hit the clinical headlines on a frequent basis. The temptation to go “Look! Shiny!” and learn about the latest thing isn’t confined to teenagers following some social media trend. Yup, even sober-sides nearly 60-year-olds like me still want to go on learning, getting better at what I do, keeping up with what’s popular…

And yet I worry just a tad when I see the number of therapies that have kicked off with a hiss and a roar but later don’t seem nearly as promising as they did when they started. Why is that? What am I worrying about?

New ideas can often get picked up without critique, as if a new idea comes fully birthed and complete. The slow decades of development, the theory that underpins an approach, and the careful ways researchers couch their conclusions can be completely ignored in the rush to show that ‘I’m up-to-date’ – and that’s a problem. Why? Because while a hallmark of an expert is in describing complex concepts in a very simple way, when we learn a new therapy we are most certainly not expert. So we’re likely to pick up on superficial and relatively black and white ideas, but fail to be aware of how these ideas are scaffolded by theory (Paas & van Merrienboer, 2020).

The difference between a technician and a professional is, I believe, in how deeply a professional will understand the theory. Theoretical knowledge teaches principles, and principles allow us to be versatile as we apply theory to different settings (Kirk, 2022). It takes time to move from superficial to deep understanding, something we expect during undergraduate learning as we develop epistemic cognition (the process of acquiring, understanding, employing and adapting knowledge to specific contexts) – and mostly, we will have had highly structured learning experiences during our training that will have made this process almost invisible to us as we learned them (Yeung, et al., 2021).

I think this makes postgraduate ‘lifelong learning’ tend towards reinforcing known assumptions – clinicians search for habitus (a set of dispositions that ‘incline’ people towards particular practices) because these fit with ‘things the way they are.’ Yeung and colleagues argue that it’s important to develop epistemic reflexivity, or ‘making strange’ the assumptions that go to make up clinical practice, so we can begin to recognise how these assumptions influence clinical reasoning. This process, however, might not be included in our professional training because it can lead to awkward questions – ones like ‘why’ and ‘what if’ and ones without satisfactory answers. Oh darn.

We can blame limited attention to epistemic reflexivity for the superficial way in which Explain Pain has been adopted. Explain Pain is a great way to begin learning about pain mechanisms, and when delivered in the way that the authors hoped it would, offers people with pain a way in to engaging in therapy that might not look much like what they’d thought they’d get. BUT too many people get the book shoved under their noses as ‘therapy’ in the mistaken hope that (a) the person’s pain will magically reduce simply because they know pain is ‘an output of the brain’; and (b) it works as a stand-alone treatment. It does not, except perhaps for fellow nerds like me.

You see, if your world view of therapy is that people are blank slates on which new information is thought to fix things, or that your job is to ‘correct’ abnormalities, and that you are the Holder of Truth, then a therapeutic innovation like Explain Pain can get picked up and bolted on to everyday practice as if it’s just another modality or technique. All the theory underpinning how and why information and learning might be useful (whether this is from a cognitive behavioural approach, or an educational one) gets lost. And the effectiveness either diluted, or at times, negated.

With CFT, built as it is on psychological principles (operant, classical conditioning, cognitive therapy, experiential learning) and delivered by confident therapists who understand movement and aren’t afraid of pain, the results are great. There is something inherently safe in being in a clinical setting with a confident clinician, exploring previously avoided movements in new and gently graded ways.

What CFT is not, however, is a recipe for correcting wrong beliefs, for pushing people into movements they’re afraid of and before they’re ready, by clinicians who themselves are uncertain, and who are looking for ‘movement dysfunctions’ or ‘deficits.’ It’s not intended to be bolted on to ‘usual practice’ which, as we can readily see from the diverse beliefs and practice about back pain in therapists in the ‘usual care’ arm of just about any RCT we care to review, is pretty messy.

To learn a new approach means making existing practice ‘strange.’ It means feeling awkward. Assumptions about ‘the problem’ and what we should do about it can get questioned. It means starting as a novice – therapy takes longer at first because we have to think harder. Our slick competence gets rattled as we can’t just reach for the things we usually (and automatically) reach for.

I’ve learned three forms of therapy that deviate a long way from my original occupational therapy practice. CBT meant I needed to learn cognitive theory, behavioural theory, how to elicit thoughts and beliefs, and link these to actions the person did. The hardest part of CBT was delaying my problem identification until I’d collected enough information to develop a formulation. Then I learned Motivational Interviewing, with its focus on values and eliciting personal reasons for change. Being willing to employ small sets of phrases and summarising then putting the question back to the person for their decision was hard after having spent so long thinking that I knew best. Finally I started learning ACT, and plunged into the complex world of understanding relational frame theory, the power of a behavioural and experiential way of learning that circumvents words (which are my natural home).

In each case, I’ve had to question the assumptions I’d developed as I delved into the theory underlying these approaches. I’ve really had to challenge myself to relate each new concept to what I already thought of as ‘truth.’ The origins of even starting to poke into ‘psychological’ approaches were embedded in my initial biopsychosocial learning that was inherent in my occupational therapy training – and I was lucky enough to have learned these ideas when they were relatively new and just being introduced by Engel. But I have had to question this perspective as well – and the way I view Engel and his work is quite different today from the way I first understood it.

Parting shot: Being attracted to a new and groovy practice is part of being a human. We’re nothing if we’re not curious (see this post from a few months ago). Let’s keep in mind, though, the need for ongoing critical analysis. Ask questions like: What are we trying to do here? What is the purpose of this approach? What are the theories underpinning this approach? What strategies or means are being carried out to achieve the results? What are the assumptions of this approach? Who benefits from these assumptions? Who is most directly affected by this? Are there alternative perspectives? What else might need to change for this to work? How would we know it had worked? – click here for one of the easily accessed critical thinking worksheets, this one from National Geographic.

Kirk, A. (2023). How physiotherapy students approach learning and their clinical reasoning capability (Doctoral dissertation, University of Otago).

Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2020). Cognitive-load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394-398.

Tremblay, M. L., Leppink, J., Leclerc, G., Rethans, J. J., & Dolmans, D. H. (2019). Simulation‐based education for novices: complex learning tasks promote reflective practice. Medical Education, 53(4), 380-389.

Yeung, E., Gibson, B., Kuper, A., Shaw, J., & Nixon, S. (2019). Making strange’: exploring the development of students’ capacity in epistemic reflexivity. Journal of Humanities in Rehabilitation, 1-15.

Learning ACT (acceptance and commitment therapy)

Around 2001 I read what I believe is the first randomised controlled trial of ACT for people living with chronic pain (McCracken, 1998). I quickly dived into this ‘new’ therapy – it appealed to me because it resonated with my own experiences with psychological therapies for depression, and in the way I had learned to live alongside my own pain. For those who don’t know, I developed chronic pain around the age of 22ish (dates are hard to remember!) and after seeing a pain specialist was given those fateful words ‘I’m sorry, there’s nothing we can do from a medical perspective.’

Why did ACT resonate so well? Because I’d tried to do the things that CBT offered. All the ‘maladaptive thoughts’ (stinkin’ thinkin’), the reframing (no, life doesn’t suck completely, it just sucks here, and here…), the behavioural activation (just keep on doing, even though it’s not rewarding) – all the things I was supposed to do to ‘fix’ my depression and my pain, but actually made me focus more on my thoughts, and more on the reality of being a single mother with two small children working full-time, studying part-time, and yes, feeling overwhelmed and at times pretty desperate.

ACT was different. ACT focused on noticing first. Noticing what was here and now. And when I was being present in the moment I could see my children as wonderful, quirky, loving kids (who also made a horrendous mess that I could never keep on top of!). I could see the colours in the flowers and trees in the nearby Botanic Gardens. I could notice my left earlobe (it doesn’t get sore – neither does my belly button!).

Learning ACT was not easy. ACT is a slippery therapy for anyone who wants a step-by-step protocol. There are common parts to ACT as an approach, like creating a sense of ‘these things don’t work – but it’s not for want of trying, it’s because humans don’t work this way’ (because the harder we struggle to control a thought or a feeling, the more it sticks to us), like being present and noticing, choosing actions that align with what matters: these were relatively familiar to me because of my occupational therapy background. Occupational therapists often start by asking people about what they want and need to do, then begin by setting actions that help the person do those things, but ACT can start anywhere on that darned hexaflex.

How might I go about learning ACT today? Because I know me, I would begin by looking at the end. What’s the end goal with ACT? It’s about being able to continue doing what matters (making our lives count in the ways we want them to), despite what life throws at us. I take this to mean that although the form or outer expression of what matters to us might change over our lives, the intent or values underpinning those actions is retained. And sometimes the values might change a little as we focus on one for a time, and others step back.

The thing is, changing how we do things is hard! I’ve often said to people with pain that I can teach the skills of pacing, for example, in an hour. What’s difficult is dealing with what our minds say, the reactions from other people, our own feelings about making changes and dealing with these other reactions, and the inner sense of wrongness that can come up – like ‘what kind of a person stops half-way through a task just to go take a break?’ And this is why ‘education’ for pain has to go beyond telling someone what to do.

As a total nerd, I like to know the theory or the organising structure supporting a therapy. ACT is based on solid science and I don’t just mean relational frame theory! ACT is a cognitive behavioural therapy, with the major distinction between ACT and CBT being how language is viewed. This means knowing about behaviour change from a Skinnerian perspective. It really does help to understand classical and operant conditioning. It moves us away from working hard to avoid things we don’t like, and towards things that are rewarding to us. The influence of moving in the direction of things we want has a different flavour from avoiding things we don’t want.

For example, if I work hard to avoid feeling my pain, I'll notice my pain whenever I do anything. This makes pain so much more present to me! If, instead, I want to enjoy the delights of what my body can do because I love to move to music, there are so many ways I can do this! I can tap my toes and my fingers in time to the music. I can hum along. I can chair dance. I can sit and internally dance to it. I can stand up and do a wiggle. I can even get up and dance! I can walk in time to the music, I can choose the tempo of the music I move to... the world opens up to me. 

I do ACT as I understand it. I try to use ‘doing’ as the vehicle for working through the various processes because how we do anything is how we do everything. I try not to just talk about ACT. ACT is a doing therapy where, by paying attention to what happens in the moment and bypassing the commentary our minds make (and the stories we hold onto about who we are), the effects of what we do become the guidance we need.

For example, if I feel better in my body by doing chunks of activity then doing a stretch or a walk or a dance or a body scan, my mind can leap in and tell me I'm being lazy, ineffective, sloppy, and never get anything done. Following the guidance of my mind would lead me away from relishing the lightness and reduced pain I get from chunking my day into bits. If I'm willing to notice how my mind likes to nag AND to notice how wonderful my body feels, guess which one is a better guide? Especially if what really matters to me is how I can be calm at the end of the day when I spend time with my partner! By noticing how my body is, and letting my mind do its thing without buying into the content, I'm much more likely to keep doing the pacing. 

There are many courses teaching ACT, and loads of freely accessible material on ACT throughout the interwebs. That’s due in large part to the ethos of ACT and those researching and using ACT-aligned approaches. Unlike CBT which can be tightly regulated, particularly in the USA, ACT is far more generous and open. Anyone can use ACT, it’s intended to view people as people, not bundles of psychopathology. I like this, especially in pain where so many people have already been given unhelpful names and treated with disdain and stigma. It won’t breach your scope of practice because it is about humans being practical about how our minds work, and what trips us up when we hit a life snag. Life snags are everywhere, and being human is, well, who we are!

The challenge for therapists not familiar with psychological approaches is to learn ACT from the perspective of your profession. If you’re a physiotherapist, ACT is done differently from when ACT is used by an occupational therapist or a social worker or a psychologist. We might deal with the same stuff, but our entry point to ACT is often different from a psychologist. I like to begin with actions aligned with values and watch what happens as people begin to do the things. It’s once people begin doing that our minds, beliefs about who we are, our desire not to feel uncomfortable, our memories and expectations all begin to wreak havoc on being guided by what actually happens in real time.

This is why I’m preparing my own online ACT course for therapists who work with people living with pain. The solid foundations of ACT will be there – but we’ll begin by doing the doing. ACT is a different way of being with people, and the best person to experiment with is —– yep, yourself. Keep watching for ACT for pain therapists, coming soon!

BTW this study by Lai et al., (2023) shows 33 ACT RCTs (bearing in mind my reservations about RCTs), with 2293 participants, showing (as usual) small to medium effect sizes for physical function and pain intensity at follow-up; and on depression, anxiety and improved quality of life. Interestingly, people with difficult-to-treat pains like chronic headache and fibromyalgia showed greater benefit than those wioth nonspecific or mixed pain, and again as usual, results were smaller over time. ACT is helpful – so let’s do it!

Lai, L., Liu, Y., McCracken, L. M., Li, Y., & Ren, Z. (2023). The efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: A three-level meta-analysis and a trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. Behav Res Ther, 165, 104308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2023.104308

McCracken, L. M. (1998). Learning to live with the pain: acceptance of pain predicts adjustment in persons with chronic pain. Pain, 74(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00146-2

“… someone needs to find the cause of my pain, then fix it.” What to do with sticky beliefs

I think most clinicians, and certainly a lot of people living with pain, want to know ‘what’s going on’ – with the hope that, once identified, ‘something’ can be done. Tricky stuff to navigate both as a person living with pain, and as a clinician – because for so many chronic pains, a diagnosis does very little.

Having a label has some benefits, for sure: it acts as a short-hand when talking about what’s going on with others; it can validate that the mysterious problems a person has been having are ‘real’ (though I could say more about that!); it can help people find others with similar problems; and there’s always hope that by giving the problem a name it might lead to effective treatment. In the case of pains involving neuropathic or nociplastic mechanisms however, effective therapies are few, far between, and not terribly effective.

From a clinician’s perspective one of the most challenging situations is knowing what to do when someone is really convinced that there is a ‘something’ to be found, because many know how little diagnoses actually help. After all, each person with ‘lateral elbow pain’ might have pain in their lateral elbow, but how it affects them differs wildly depending on what they want to, and need to do in daily life.

For the person with pain who knows their own body and knows what their ‘normal’ feels like, finding the cause seems utterly logical and the necessary requirement before being able to get better.

Clinicians have used many ways to ‘explain pain’ or otherwise give people a handle on what might be going on. Almost all of our strategies aim to help people feel OK to move even with pain and emphasise that when pain persists, it’s less about harm and ‘alarm signals’ and more about problems in the nociceptive system. The rationale for these explanations is to encourage people to engage with therapy and begin rehab.

Problem is that for the person living with pain this can feel dismissive. Like their worries about what might be going on are trivialised, and they’re being kept in the dark almost as a show of power (or to confirm how useless medicine is).

From an ACT perspective, we have a few options, beginning by first looking at the function of getting a diagnosis. I pointed out some of the benefits of diagnoses in the second paragraph above. These show how diagnoses can function in people’s lives. When a person doesn’t have a diagnosis, the converse can apply: people can feel invalidated, that their pain is mysterious (and usually means something scary), that there is no answer and they’re on their own trying to deal with it, that the people around them may never know what it’s like to deal with it, and that this might be their life forever. I can see why the search for a label continues.

The good thing is, clinicians can help someone with those feelings even without giving a diagnosis. And clinicians will likely still have to help people in the same way even with a diagnosis.

As clinicians we have ways to work with people at this stage in their life with pain. My go-to is to ask the person to tell me the good things about continuing to look for a diagnosis from their perspective. I listen very carefully because this matters, this tells me about what the person is yearning for (even if I need to go below the words and explore the meaning behind them). For example, if a person says “I keep looking because I’m sure it will lead to the right treatment” or “I feel the doctors don’t take me seriously because they can’t find anything” or “I know [insert name] who had the same things going on and eventually they found what’s wrong but too late”, I hear a yearning for ‘life to return to normal’, ‘I want respect and affirmation’, ‘I’m scared this might go on and on and I’ll be stuck like this for life.’ I check my interpretations out with the person as I summarise the ‘good things’ about looking for a diagnosis.

Then I ask the person to tell me the not-so-good-things about looking for a diagnosis. Sometimes I’ll prompt them with examples they’ve already told me: like the hope then despair of going through investigations; the financial and life burden of continuing to look; the endless waiting and waiting for results; the dismissive attitude if nothing is found… The list can be very long indeed. And heartbreakingly sad. The search may have been going on for years. Again, I’ll summarise, and ask the person how this affects them as people. I have such compassion for people who have gone through this for so long. The yearning for making sense is strong in all of us!

By summarising both the good and the not-so-good of looking for a definitive diagnosis, and asking the person what sense they make of it all, the aim is to take a long look at how this search is functioning in the person’s life. For some people it hasn’t stopped them from doing what matters, and the search is almost like a scavenger hunt. Life has carried on. They do the important things for them, and that’s fine. For others, taking a stocktake like this has significant impact. Remember, doing this is not in the service of what I want as a clinician. This exercise aims to find out how the search is working for the person and what matters to them.

Once I’ve gone through this process, I begin looking at whether the person is ready for an alternative approach. Of course, this is only considered if they identify that the costs of continuing to search for a diagnosis are too high, and they recognise that it’s been having a negative impact on them. If it is time to switch things up, I can use the fingertrap example , I might talk about how natural and normal it is to want to make sense of things (we’re in this together, we’re all human and want a sense of coherence), I could draw on the digging a hole metaphor or ‘drop the rope’ metaphor. The aim is to help people recognise that stopping the search is a valid way of responding to this need for coherence.

Truth is, though, I don’t usually use these metaphors but instead ask the person ‘if your pain wasn’t as much of a problem for you, what would you be doing?’ and collaborate with the person to understand the values underneath that desire. Working with positive directions (appetitive motivation rather than aversive motivation) helps people pick up on what makes their life worthwhile.

All and any of the processes in the hexaflex can be used to help someone who has got stuck in the pursuit of finding a diagnosis. What matters for us as clinicians is: (1) to be mindful of how this search is functioning (don’t mess with something that isn’t getting in the way of living a meaningful life, but just as importantly, don’t buy into the search for coherence without considering how this may be interfering with helping the person do what matters to them); (2) to explore this process with compassion, knowing that we all do this – and that it has at times led us to develop unhelpful explanations and diagnostic labels, use metaphors that don’t hold much meaning to the person, and leave the person feeling like we don’t take their concerns seriously and don’t care.

Want resources for this? My go-to books are: A liberated mind – https://contextualscience.org/publications/a_liberated_mind_how_to_pivot_toward_what_matters

Learning ACT – https://www.newharbinger.com/9781626259492/learning-act/

Westrup, D., & Wright, M. J. (2017). Learning ACT for Group Treatment: An Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Skills Training Manual for Therapists. Context Press.

Radical relief – https://www.optp.com/Radical-Relief-A-Guide-to-Overcome-Chronic-Pain

There are so many ACT research papers available – with nearly 1000 RCTs, many conducted with people living with chronic pain, ACT is one of the most well-researched therapies across diverse populations of any therapy. The processes of ACT have been validated in people with chronic pain, and you can take confidence both as a person with pain, and clinicians, that ACT has shown highly effective and longlasting effects. Clinicians from any therapeutic background can learn ACT and use it without stepping over ‘scope of practice’ issues. I’ve been using ACT as an occupational therapist for around 19, maybe 20 years. I’d love for more clinicians to learn ACT and bring this into their clinical practice because it’s liberating for us too.

On not being an arse

Humans are judgemental beings. All of us are. It’s part of having a big brain and wanting to know who’s ‘in’ and who’s ‘out’. Judgements help us make decisions, they’re surprisingly resistant to change, and they can inadvertently trap us into doing things we would never countenance were we able to stand back from what our minds want us to know (and feel).

My post today is prompted by a couple of conversations recently. One was with a clinician, new to a pain team, who found that experienced members of that team thought actions taken by a person with pain were a sign of ‘catastrophising’ and ‘failing to accept’ and worse – ‘not engaging in the programme.’ He’d thought the very same actions were an indication of someone trying very hard to improve their situation, of being motivated to learn and experiment, of being a self-advocate.

The other conversation was with someone who had not been referred for investigations for a new pain she had developed, on the basis that ‘hurt doesn’t equal harm’ and because she already had a chronic pain problem. She went through many years of distress and disability because her new pain was not investigated – but once it was, she got a diagnosis and the treatment that reduced that pain and relieved her distress. Sadly the psychological distress of not having her concerns addressed lives on.

How can we get it so wrong? How is it that good clinicians with the best of intentions (my assumption) make judgements about a person, their pain, and what they do about it and paint the person with pain in such negative ways?

Perhaps clinicians can be excused for holding negative attitudes towards people with chronic pain because the prevailing belief in our clinical communities is that ‘we, the professionals, know what’s right.’ We know this because we have the randomised controlled trials that show us Truth about What Works and What Does Not. I write these in capitals because while health professionals embrace evidence-based health care, I’m not sure we’re all that au fait with the original model of EBHC and its three-part definition: “a systematic approach to clinical problem solving which allows the integration of the best available research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values (Sackett, et al., 1996).” Note those last two points: clinical expertise and patient values.

We’re also not very good at being critical about research. Well, I take that back, we pull research apart when the results don’t equate with our experience or preferences, and gulp down whole the research that does… but what we don’t do nearly as well is to be critical of implicit issues with research paradigms. What I mean by this is we don’t ask ourselves whether the assumptions used in statistical analyses hold true (I’ve discussed ergodicity before); whether the participants recruited to studies are anything like the people we see (research participants are selected to reflect a ‘pure’ construct for testing, so people with multiple comorbidities, who might have difficulty with language or who might not even engage with healthcare and those who are not from high income countries aren’t represented); whether the treatment/s studied in research look anything like what is actually delivered in daily clinical practice, even how long the follow-ups are and what happens once a person is not part of a research project.

Limited critical analysis means results from research reach practice quite quickly (even though the nuances reported by the researchers in those papers often do not) and what’s worse, help to reinforce a hierarchy separating the person seeking help and us as clinicians. After all, us clinicians spend years learning all this stuff so it should count for something, shouldn’t it?

Well… not as much as we’d like it to, perhaps.

Because if clinicians judge a person based on erroneous beliefs about the superiority of what we know in theory (because quantitative research represents only a ‘failure to reject the null hypothesis‘ not definitive support for a theoretical prediction) we’re not inclined to be curious about what the person brings into our communication. Walt Whitman apparently said “Be curious, not judgemental” – and curiosity allows clinicians to suspend judgement in order to explore, to dive more deeply into detail and context, and ultimately, to be more compassionate. Don’t believe me? Take a look at this paper by Shields, et al., (2013).

“Physicians who used more certainty language engaged in less thorough assessment of pain (β = -0.48, p < .05). Conversely, physicians who engaged in more exploring and validating of patient concerns (β = 0.27, p < .05) had higher ratings on anxiety/concerned voice tone (β = 0.25, p <.01) and engaged in more thorough assessment of pain. Together, these three factors accounted for 38% of the variance in pain assessment. Physicians who convey certainty in discussions with patients suffering from pain may be more likely to close prematurely their assessment of pain. We found that expressions of physician concern and responsiveness (curiosity) were associated with superior pain assessment.”

We could replace ‘physician’ with any other healthcare professional, and my bet is we’d find the same thing.

Why does this matter?

Well, after being part of a number of “experts by experience” conversations over the years, the message coming through loud and clear is that clinicians who judge people negatively and fail to respond to what it is the person intends or needs, but instead dismiss their concerns as ‘catastrophising’ or ‘maladaptive thinking’ or even ‘not motivated to engage’ leave people with pain in distress. The psychological impact of feeling that your concerns are not important, of being dismissed, of not being heard is long-lasting. One person I’ve spoken to described her anxiety about seeking help from a clinician after a single time where her concerns weren’t acknowledged.

We might not intend to do it. We may think we’re doing the right thing – and possibly we are doing the right thing but doing it in a ham-fisted and damaging way.

• First listen, be curious and understand why a person has done what they’ve done. People don’t get up in the morning to do dumb things. There’s always some underlying reason a person does what they do.
• Then reflect in a compassionate and empathetic way – show the person you’ve heard them. Let them know what it is you’ve understood – let them correct you if you’ve got it wrong and remember that taking the time to do this saves time.
• Ask them how well their approach is working for them. Aim to understand the benefits from their perspective. Normalise their approach – humans do what humans do, try to solve a problem using the tools at their disposal, just the same way we do as clinicians. Ask about the short-term effects, and the long-term impact. Ask about the good and not-so-good of their approach. BE CURIOUS!
• Involve the person in your decision-making. Be honest about your reasoning and be real about the level of uncertainty that exists in our knowledge about pain. This person is an individual, not a number in an RCT, this person probably doesn’t even look like a participant in an RTC.
• Be specific with your reassurance. Don’t dismiss someone’s concern about a new pain: find out what it is they’re concerned about and ensure you clearly address that concern. Don’t be patronising – be authentic and real.

There is so much harm we clinicians inadvertently do because we’re not flexible, we don’t take time to really hear how a person gets to where they are in their journey with pain, and we really need to be more critical about our own assumptions.

Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Bmj, 312(7023), 71-72.

Shields, C. G., Finley, M. A., Elias, C. M., Coker, C. J., Griggs, J. J., Fiscella, K., & Epstein, R. M. (2013). Pain assessment: the roles of physician certainty and curiosity. Health Communication, 28(7), 740-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.715380

“N-of-1” research – A clinically relevant research strategy!

I’ve been banging on about single case experimental research designs (SCED) ever since I studied with Prof Neville Blampied at University of Canterbury. Prof Blampied (now retired) was enthusiastic about this approach because it allows clinicians to scientifically test whether an intervention has an effect in an individual – but he took it further with a very cool graphical analysis that allows multiple cases to be studied and plotted using the modified Brinley Plot (Blampied, 2017), and I’ll be discussing it later in this series. Suffice to say, I love this approach to research because it allows clinicians to study what happens especially when the group of participants might be quite unique so RCTs can’t readily be conducted. For example, people living with CRPS!

Krasny-Pacini & Evans (2018) make the case that SCED are useful when:

1. Evaluating the efficacy of a current intervention for one particular patient in daily clinical practice to provide the best treatment based on evidence rather than clinical impressions;
2. Conducting research in a clinical rehabilitation setting (outside a research team) with a single or few patients;
3. Piloting a novel intervention, or application/modification of a known intervention to an atypical case or other condition/type of patients that the intervention was originally designed for;
4. Investigating which part of an intervention package is effective;

5. working with rare conditions or unusual target of intervention, for which there would never be enough patients for a group study;

6. Impossibility to obtain a homogenous sample of patients for a group study;
7. Time limitation (e.g. a study needing to be completed within 8 months, e.g. for a master degree research. . .) or limited funding not allowing recruitment of a group.

So let’s think of how we might go about doing a single case experiment in the clinic.

First step, we need to think hard about what we want to measure. It’s not likely you’ll find an already-developed measure that is tailored to both the person and the treatment you want to use. There are key characteristics for this measure that you’ll need to consider (these come from the SCRIBE guidelines – see Tate, et al., 2016). You’ll want to look for target behaviours “relevant to the behaviour in question and that best match the intervention as well as accurate in their measurement”; “specific, observable and replicable”; “inter-observe agreement on the target behaviour is needed”.

You’ll also want to think of the burden on the person completing the measures, because mostly these will be carried out intensively over a day/week or even a therapy session.

Some examples, drawn from the Krasny-Pacini & Evans (2018) paper include:

• the number of steps a person does in a day
• time it takes to get dressed
• VAS for pain
• self-rated confidence and satisfaction with an activity
• Goal attainment scale (patient-specific goals rated on a scale between -2 and +2) – this link takes you to a manual for using GAS [click]
• the time a person heads to bed, and the time they wake up and get out of bed

You can choose when to do the measurements, but because one of our aims is to generalise the learning, I think it’s useful to ask the person to complete these daily.

You’ll also need to include a control measure – these are measures that aren’t expected to change as a result of your therapy but are affected by the problem and help to demonstrate that progress is about the therapy and not just natural progression or regression to the mean, or attention etc. For example, if you’re looking at helping someone develop a regular bedtime and wakeup time, you might want to measure the time they have breakfast, or the number of steps they do in a day.

Generalisation measures are really important in rehabilitation because, after all, we hope that what we do in our therapy will have an effect on daily life outside of therapy! These measures should assess the intervention’s effect on ‘untrained’ tasks, for example we could measure self-rated confidence and satisfaction on driving or walking if we’ve been focusing on activity management (pacing). We’d hope that by using pacing and planning, the person would feel more confident to drive places because they have more energy and less pain. It’s not as necessary to take generalisation measures as often as the target behaviour, but that can be an option, alternatively you could measure pre and post – and of course, follow-up.

Procedural data are measures that show when a person implements the intervention, and these show the relationship between the intervention and the target we hope to influence. So, if we’ve used something like a mindfulness exercise before bed, we hope the intevention might reduce worry and the person will wake feeling refreshed, so we’d monitor (a) that they’ve done the mindfulness that night; (b) that they feel less worried in the morning; and (c) that they wake feeling refreshed. All of these can be measured using a simple yes/no (for the mindfulness), and a 0 – 10 numeric rating scale with appropriate anchors (for less worry, and feeling refreshed).

If you’re starting to think what you could measure – try one of these yourself! Start by deciding what you’d like to change, for example, feeling less worried. Decide on the intervention, for example using a mindfulness activity at night. Add in a measure of ‘feeling refreshed’. Keep a notepad by your bed and each night, record whether you did the mindfulness activity, then in the morning record your level of worry 0 = not at all worried, 10 = extremely worried; and record your feeling of refreshment 0 = not at all refreshed, 10 = incredibly refreshed.

If you want to, you can set up a Google Docs form, and graph your results for each day. At the end of each day you could include a note about how stressful your day has been as another measurement to add to the mix.

For patients, using text messaging is really helpful – if you have a clinic SMS service, you could use this to send the text messages to your client and they can text back. Many of the SMS services can automatically record a client’s response, and this makes it easy to monitor their progress (and yours if you want to try it out!).

There are some other designs you can use – and remember I mentioned you’d usually want to record a baseline where you don’t use the intervention. As a start, do this for at least a week/seven days, but you’re looking to establish any patterns so that when you do the intervention you can distinguish between random variations across a week and change that occurs in response to your therapy.

Have a go – and let me know how it works for you!

Blampied, N. M. (2017). Analyzing Therapeutic Change Using Modified Brinley Plots: History, Construction, and Interpretation. Behavior Therapy, 48(1), 115-127. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.09.002

Krasny-Pacini, A., & Evans, J. (2018). Single-case experimental designs to assess intervention effectiveness in rehabilitation: A practical guide. Annals of Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine, 61(3), 164-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2017.12.002

Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., Rosenkoetter, U., McDonald, S., Togher, L., Shadish, W., Horner, R., Kratochwill, T., Barlow, D. H., Kazdin, A., Sampson, M., Shamseer, L., & Vohra, S. (2016). The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: Explanation and elaboration. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4(1), 10-31. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000027

Persistent pain and movement practices

Here I go, stepping into “the bio” to write about movement. Oh dear, what am I doing?

Movement practices of various kinds are part and parcel of pain management. In fact, to read some of the material in social media-land, exercise is the be-all and end-all of pain management, maybe with a dash of psychology. Can we please stop doing this?

I’ve said it often, for many forms of persistent pain, especially the most common forms – nonspecific chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritic pain – movement is a good thing, but the effect sizes are small for both pain intensity and disability (eg Jayden, et al., 2021). I’ve reproduced the author’s conclusions below:

We found moderate‐certainty evidence that exercise is probably effective for treatment of chronic low back pain compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo for pain. The observed treatment effect for the exercise compared to no treatment, usual care or placebo comparisons is small for functional limitations, not meeting our threshold for minimal clinically important difference. We also found exercise to have improved pain (low‐certainty evidence) and functional limitations outcomes (moderate‐certainty evidence) compared to other conservative treatments; however, these effects were small and not clinically important when considering all comparisons together. Subgroup analysis suggested that exercise treatment is probably more effective than advice or education alone, or electrotherapy, but with no differences observed for manual therapy treatments.

So for chronic low back pain, short-term pain intensity reduction is clinically significant, but neither functional limitations nor pain intensity reductions over the long-term reached clinical significance. Ouch! This means that we must not oversell the usefulness of exercise as a panacea for chronic pain.

Some missing bits in this meta-analysis: how many people carried on doing their exercise programmes? Why did they keep on going if they didn’t experience reduced pain or better function? How many people dropped out from follow-up?

But my biggest question is “Why does increased physical fitness and reduced pain not translate into better function in daily life?” And of course, my next question is “What might improve the daily life outcomes for people with pain?”

I might also ask why there is so much emphasis on exercise as an approach for chronic pain? Why oh why? One reason could be the assumptions made about the reasons people have trouble with daily life activities. A reasonable assumption might be that people are unfit. Another might be that people don’t have confidence to move. But if these assumptions were true, we’d see better results than this. Perhaps we need to be much more sophisticated and begin to explore what really does impact a person’s daily life activities? My plea therefore is that we cease doing RCTs comparing exercises of various forms to placebo, no treatment or usual care. Please. We know movement is a good thing, and with the enormous number of studies carried out, surely we can stop now?!*

Here are some clinical reasoning pointers when employing movement practices. I’m being agnostic with respect to what form of movement practice [insert your favourite here].

• Find out what the person enjoys doing for movement/exercise. Aim to do this, or build towards doing this. Start low and build up intensity, load and frequency.
• Find out why the person has stopped doing their movement/exercise practice. If pain has stopped them, be curious about what they think is going on, what they think the pain means, what happens if they experience pain doing their favourite movement practice, and find out how long and how much they’ve done before pain stops them. Then address unhelpful beliefs, re-set the starting point and progress in a gentle graded way.
• If the person hasn’t ever been a movement/exercise person, be curious about why. Explore this in detail – beliefs about movement, movement practices they’ve tried, time available, cost, all the things that might get in the way of doing a movement practice. You might find it was a high school physical ed. practice that totally put them off – but look beyond “exercise” or “sports” and remember that movement includes walking, dancing, gardening, playing with the dog, fishing, kayaking….

When you’re starting to generate a movement practice programme, for goodness sake ask the person when they’re going to find time to do it, and don’t make it too long! Explore when might be the most convenient time, and what might make it easy to do. Use low cost, low-tech practices. Find out what might get in the way of doing the movement practice, and do some problem-solving – anticipate what goes through a person’s mind and together, come up with counter-arguments or better, think of some really important values that might underpin the reason to do what is undoubtedly difficult for this person in their life.

Think about life-long habits and routines. How might this person explore options that could fit into their life as they get older? What might they do if the weather is bad, or they have an addition to the family? How many different movement practices can you and the person think of? And remember, if it’s OK for a person at a gym to do “leg day” one day, and “arm day” another, it’s perfectly fine for someone to do gardening one day, and go for a walk up the hill the next. Don’t be boring! Invite exploration and variety.

Work on translating the movement practices you and the person do in clinic into the daily life movements the person is having trouble doing. This might mean asking the person about their daily life and what’s most difficult for them to do right now. If it’s bending to load/unload the dishwasher, ask them what’s going on, what comes up for them when they do this? Is the problem about physical capability – or is it because it’s at the end of a long day at work, they’re tired and haven’t been sleeping and they’re worrying about how the pain in their back is going to affect their sleep tonight? If it’s the latter – guess what, physical exercise isn’t going to change this! So talk about what they can do to help with their sleep, or if that’s not your forte, talk to another team member (occupational therapist, psychologist) about what might help.

Note that as clinicians, we have no right to dictate what a person’s life looks like. This means we can’t judge a person for their choice of movement practice. We also can’t dictate how often or how intense their “workout” should be. It’s going to vary, depending on all the things this person in front of you values most. And we must respect this – don’t be judgemental, their values may be very different from yours, and this is perfectly OK. Just help them explore the good – and not so good – of their choices.

Finally, don’t be afraid to have fun with movement! Play a little. If disc golf is the person’s thing – go try it out! If jive dance is their thing, maybe it’s time you gave that a go. If they like hiking to a quiet spot to do a little bird photography, go with them and carry your own camera gear. If their life is so busy that movement practice gets squeezed out, work with them to find ways to get movement snacks into their day. Don’t be boring. And worry a little less about “prescribing” movement, and much more about experiencing your body as a living sensory being – get in the moment and enjoy what your body is able to do. That is really what we’re encouraging in movement practices for chronic pain.

*A couple of other guesses for why exercise gets seen as The Best Thing – it’s “cheap” in comparison with other options, people can do it reasonably easily after therapy, there are LOTS of physiotherapists and others who offer this, it appeals to our “simple” (but wrong) beliefs about pain, psychological approaches are more expensive (though don’t offer better outcomes), daily life occupational therapy approaches are really hard to conduct as RCTs….

Hayden JA, Ellis J, Ogilvie R, Malmivaara A, van Tulder MW. Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD009790. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009790.pub2. Accessed 18 December 2022.

The joy of having many data points

Researchers and clinicians are drawn to studies with many participants. Especially randomised controlled trials, where two groups are randomly divided and one gets “the real thing” while the other does not. The joy comes from knowing that results from these kinds of studies suggest that, all things being equal, the differences between the groups is “real” and not just by chance.

When we come to analyse the graphs from these kinds of studies, what we hope to see are two nice bell-shaped curves, with distinct peaks (the arithmetic mean) and long tails either side – and a clear separation between the mean of one group (the experimental one) and the control group.

It should look a bit like this:

Now one of the problems in doing research is that we can’t always guarantee a large sample – for example, it’s difficult to find enough people with a relatively rare problem like complex regional pain syndrome to randomly split the groups to iron out major differences between them. And, this kind of research design presumes the principle of ergodicity – here for more information from Wikipedia, or here for a more detailed examination relating to generalising from groups to individuals.

This research design also struggles to deal with distributions that don’t conform to the lovely bell curve – things like bimodal distributions, or skewed distributions. And if we draw only on the mean – we don’t get to see these delightful peaks and troughs – or the people at either end of the curves.

The more variables we add to analysis, the more complex the statistics needed – so in the case of pain research, we often have to simplify the research question, do complex maths to “normalise” the results, and ultimately we get research that doesn’t look the slightest bit like the people we see in clinical practice. No wonder we get results that don’t look nearly as nice as the research studies!

Now I don’t mind statistics at all, but I do mind research papers that don’t declare the assumptions made when using analyses. Many papers assume the reader knows these assumptions – unlike qualitative research where the authors philosophical assumptions are openly stated, and where epistemology and ontology are considered part of the research design.

So why might lots of data points be cool?

Most of us working in a clinic will be seeing an individual. One person, with all their unique history, attributes, vulnerabilities, preferences and values. When we extrapolate the findings from RCTs especially, and apply them to this unique person, we risk failing to acknowledge that we’re violating the principle of ergodicity, and that our person may be one of those falling at the tails of that bell curve: or worse, in the middle of a bimodal distribution. Given that most pain problems, particularly persistent pain, are multifactorial, applying a single “solution” no matter how many studies showing a positive effect there are, may not cut it.

For years I’ve been pointing out the value, both in research and in clinical practice, of single case experimental designs. There are loads of reasons for using this approach, and it’s a method with a long history. Essentially, the person serves as their own control, they take lots of measurements before introducing a treatment, the treatment is applied and changes in the measurements are closely monitored. If there’s a change in the expected direction, we can test whether it was the treatment by withdrawing said treatment, and closely monitoring any changes in the measurements. Of course, there are challenges to using this approach – we have to be able to withdraw the treatment, and that doesn’t work if it’s something like “information”. But there are ways around this – and the method of intensive longitudinal repeated measures is becoming a rich source of information about change processes.

Change processes are changes that mediate the final outcome. In other words, when we do a treatment, either the treatment directly causes the end outcome – eg give someone a raised toilet seat, and they can get off the toilet because the toilet is at a good height for them – or via some other process – eg by giving the raised toilet seat, the person gains confidence to get on and off the toilet so it’s not the toilet seat per se, but enhanced confidence that mediates the outcome.

Change processes matter because once we’ve identified them, we can develop ways to work with them more effectively. We can also measure the progress a person makes on more than one change process, and refine what we do in our treatments in response. The more data points we collect from that one person, the more we can track their trajectory – and the better we can understand what’s going on in their world to influence their responses.

Technology for repeated measures in real time has become much smarter and more invisible than it used to be. We can still employ some of the simpler techniques – a pen and paper diary still has used! But we then have to rely on the person remembering to fill them in. Passive data collection using wearable technology is something many of us use to track fitness, diet, sleep, travel, heart rate variability and so on. Set the parameters, and as long as you’re wearing the gadget, your data is captured.

Before anyone leaps in to tell me the gadgets are prone to measurement error, believe me I know! For example, monitoring sleep using a phone (or even a smartwatch) doesn’t monitor sleep depth, it monitors movement (and records snoring LOL). However – and this is important – it is more likely to get used than anything requiring me to do something extra in my day. And we can integrate both passive data collection and active data collection using similar technologies. For example, it’s not difficult to send an SMS (instant text message) at random times during the day to ask someone a brief and simple question.

Where these repeated measures approaches get a bit gnarly is in analysing the data – but even this doesn’t mean it can’t be done. The analyses require a good understanding of what it is being measured (and why), and how best to use complex statistical analyses to understand how one factor (variable) might influence another.

The advantages of using intensive measures in clinic lie with understanding how, for example, one day of additional activity (measured using the step counter combined with GPS tracking) might directly influence mood the next day (or pain, or energy levels or whatever). We still need to apply critical thinking to uncover the causal mechanisms (is it plausible for factor X to directly cause a change in factor Y?) and to check whether the results are stable over time (or just a chance fluctuation). Another advantage is that we can quickly step in to experiment with an intervention – and watch what happens. For example, if we think being very active on one day has an effect on mood the following day, we can test this out: try experimenting with a day of lots of activity, and monitor what happens the next day, or the converse, do very little and monitor what happens with mood the following day. Rinse and repeat until we’re certain that for this person, activity level has an effect on mood.

And the study that made me think about all this? It’s this one by Whibley, Williams, Clauw, Sliwinski and Kratz (2022) – click

If we want to really develop excellent clinically-relevant research-based ways to understand what might be going on for the one person in front of us, and not for the large mixed group of people included in a randomised controlled trial, we could be inspired to look at intensive repeated “micro-longitudinal” research strategies as models for clinic-based research.

Whibley, D., Williams, D. A., Clauw, D. J., Sliwinski, M. J., & Kratz, A. L. (2022). Within-day rhythms of pain and cognitive function in people with and without fibromyalgia: synchronous or syncopated? Pain, 163(3), 474-482. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002370

Ways to stop good clinicians leaving pain management (iii)

I’m an old hack when it comes to teamwork and pain management: I’ve worked in this field a long time. I’m familiar with reactions to both interpersonal differences within a team (and the myriad ways these can be expressed), and to the discourse that happens when posting a publicly available message. In fact, that’s why I publish on social media: so we can have open conversations rather than ones hidden behind paywalls, or in rarified academic settings. Humans are odd, and when poked – even when poked with good evidence – want to react, to bite back. The following comments are not about any specific organisation. I’ll repeat that: comments about what we do in healthcare (ie bullying – nurses call this ‘horizontal violence’, stigmatising, excluding, not supporting etc) in the two articles I’ve written so far on how to prevent good clinicians do not relate to any one organisation. They are based on personal experience (my own) and experiences I’ve read in the literature.

There is an elephant in the room. It’s possibly the biggest one we have in teamwork and it’s about dispute resolution. How do we resolve contrasting clinical models, interpersonal styles, personal and professional values, hierarchies (explicit or implicit) without compromising important and valid points, and without blowing relationships between team members out of the water? An alternative is to leave, as I did, having seen several clinicians put through the wringer by accusations of bullying and being the recipient of bullying myself.

I’m drawn to Dr Todd B. Kashdan’s work in his most recent book “The Art of Insubordination: How to dissent and defy effectively” because he offers well-researched strategies for individuals and groups to disrupt the status quo – not for the purpose of disrupting for the sake of it, but because of personal integrity and ethical standards. Values that clash with “received wisdom”. Creative ideas that could change practice positively, but land flat because they’re “different”. The desire to create social value – not from a place of “I’m superior, you should do it my way” or spite “I just want to get you back for being dominant” or self-interest “I want you to do this because it’ll line my pockets” (p. 11., The Art of Insubordination).

You see, principled insubordination is one reason for disputes in teams. It could be an occupational therapist identifying that participating in daily life really matters to people with chronic pain but working in a team where everyone gets the same recipe for treatment. It might be a physiotherapist who sees that there could be ways to see people in small groups, rather than individually – but gets smacked down because “that’s not the way we do it”. It might be the social worker who dreams of bringing whanau/family into pain management, but can’t get a toe in the door of a team with a strong medical procedure focus.

Each of these people holds strong values, wants to be person-centred, can see there are opportunities, and sincerely communicates them to the team. Even the idea of interprofessional or transprofessional working, where each person steps up to do what matters to the person in front of them although it doesn’t look like conventional “role division” can be an effective way to be a radical and principled rebel.

While the ideas Todd articulates SO well in his book are absolutely worth doing if you’re the principled rebel, one thing I worry about is placing the responsibility only on the rebel. It’s difficult being the one swimming against the current. It can lead to personal isolation, burnout, poor team trust, difficulty sharing information that is unique to your profession (or your encounters with a patient), less reporting critical problems and ultimately, to closing down and walking away (O’Donovan, De Brun & McAuliffe, 2021).

Stephanie Zajac and colleagues (Zajac, et al., 2021) developed a framework for healthcare team effectiveness and clearly identifies the crucial contribution of the organisation, team leadership, technical competence and having team roles and purpose (Fig. 1, p. 4). Without a supportive culture, executive leadership and teamwork reinforcement as a value, the organisational conditions likely work against effective teamwork. Without shared leadership, accountability and coaching, teams flounder and fragment. Without adequate training, the capability to do the work well, and sufficient staffing, teams don’t have sufficient technical competence to be effective. Finally, without role definitions, team directions and developing and monitoring team norms, teams will likely experience conflict and who should or can do tasks, and what’s OK and not OK within the team. Note this doesn’t inevitably mean “my role” and “your role” – inter and transprofessional team work demands blurring between roles. This is about articulating and being clear about how team members work together.

And who needs to ensure these organisational “meta-team skills” are clear, supported and maintained? Yes, it’s everyone’s job – but it’s also the organisation’s leadership team’s job to make sure it happens. After all, the leadership team should have skin in the game.

Conflict is inevitable. Some schools of thought believe that conflict is healthy, a sign of divergent thinking rather than conformity, that conflict enables people to challenge their own assumptions (O’Neill, Allen & Hastongs, 2013). At the same time, forms of conflict can be painful and damaging to the individuals involved. Disagreeing about what is done is less damaging than conflict with a member of the team. Consequently, two points spring to mind: 1. Left to fester, interpersonal conflict will reduce team trust, and ultimately stymie collaboration. People will revert to silence, and a “them and us” will emerge. Processes involving transparent, open conversations (see this link), often moving beyond the key antagonists and into the whole team, are crucial. These may involve clear policies and procedures, and need to be facilitated – preferably by someone external to the team, but knowledgeable. 2. “Ground rules” must be established about how to disagree, challenge one another, articulate different perspectives. Why? Because disagreement and conflict is inevitable, so we need to minimise the fall-out, but more importantly, because conflict when well-managed is the lifeblood of creativity and responsiveness (psst! it’s also really good for critical thinking).

Kim, S., Bochatay, N., Relyea-Chew, A., Buttrick, E., Amdahl, C., Kim, L., Frans, E., Mossanen, M., Khandekar, A., Fehr, R., & Lee, Y. M. (2017, May). Individual, interpersonal, and organisational factors of healthcare conflict: A scoping review. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 31(3), 282-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1272558

O’Donovan, R., De Brun, A., & McAuliffe, E. (2021). Healthcare Professionals Experience of Psychological Safety, Voice, and Silence. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 626689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626689

O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “Pros” and “Cons” of TeamConflict: A Team-Level Meta-Analysis of Task, Relationship, and Process Conflict. Human Performance, 26(3), 236-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.795573

Zajac, S., Woods, A., Tannenbaum, S., Salas, E., & Holladay, C. L. (2021). Overcoming Challenges to Teamwork in Healthcare: A Team Effectiveness Framework and Evidence-Based Guidance. Frontiers in Communication, 6(6). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.606445

Ways to stop good clinicians leaving pain management (ii)

I’ve been asked to amend (actually, to remove) these two posts, so I’ve altered the opening sentence – you’re reading it now. I’ve also added some comments to preface these two posts.
I’m an old hack when it comes to teamwork and pain management: I’ve worked in this field a long time. I’m familiar with reactions to both interpersonal differences within a team (and the myriad ways these can be expressed), and to the discourse that happens when posting a publicly available message. In fact, that’s why I publish on social media: so we can have open conversations rather than ones hidden behind paywalls, or in rarified academic settings. Humans are odd, and when poked – even when poked with good evidence – want to react, to bite back. The following comments are not about any specific organisation. I’ll repeat that: comments about what we do in healthcare (ie bullying – nurses call this ‘horizontal violence’, stigmatising, excluding, not supporting etc) in the two articles I’ve written so far on how to prevent good clinicians do not relate to any one organisation. They are based on personal experience (my own) and experiences I’ve read in the literature.

Last week I started a series of posts on how we can stop good clinicians leaving pain management. I began with funding because, at least in New Zealand, lack of funding is a significant part of the problem of staff retention.

Now I want to look at how we prepare clinicians to work in pain management.

One of the major barriers in New Zealand is the dominance of musculoskeletal rehabilitation in physiotherapy clinics around the country. How could direct access to musculoskeletal rehabilitation be a bad thing, you ask? Well, it’s mainly because pain management is not musculoskeletal rehabilitation – and yet most of the workforce for pain management here comes from musculoskeletal physiotherapists.

I like physiotherapists, some of them are even very good friends! And I recognise that good physiotherapists have moved a long way from the old “back school” staff sergeant approach! Many physiotherapists have developed their skills well beyond analysing pelvic tilt and using “special tests” with limited inter-rater reliability and even less predictive validity. There are good physio’s who are skilled in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, who routinely look at values and use motivational approaches in their clinical practice.

But, how well are new graduate physiotherapists (and indeed other entry-level health professionals) prepared for chronic pain work? (remember that many clinics in NZ employ entry-level therapists because they’re inexpensive, and chronic pain management isn’t a very profitable area – and staff turnover is a thing).

Unlike acute and subacute musculoskeletal rehabilitation, regression to the mean (ie returning to a baseline level of capability) doesn’t happen much in chronic pain rehab. Natural history doesn’t happen either, not four or more years after the original onset. Most treatments for chronic pain show very small effect sizes on both pain intensity and disability.

Progress towards goals is slow, and there are many – many! – flare-ups, set-backs, detours and plateaus. Because pain problems have lasted longer than expected, people have had time to worry, to be given inaccurate information, to have had poor sleep for ages, to have stopped doing the things that bring life into life, to have had several unsuccessful treatments – consequently, people with chronic pain often hold negative expectations about how effective a treatment will be.

How well do we prepare entry-level clinicians for the challenges of treatments not working? Despite the therapist “doing all the right things”?? Do we prepare them for the ambiguity and uncertainty of working without a clear diagnosis? without an algorithm? without a “simplifying process”? Chronic pain is complex!

How well do we prepare entry-level therapists not to take responsibility for a person’s outcomes? Or do we inculcate them into the idea that they must “get it right” all the time or they’ve “done something wrong”?

Do we spend so much time teaching a certain school of therapy, or set of special tests, that we forget to help them learn to listen well first? Do we teach them that mind and body are separate – and that psychological and psychosocial only come into play when “the bio” has failed to respond to treatment? Do we imply this, even inadvertently?

When do we teach entry-level therapists how to deal with therapy failure? How to work in the dark? How to revise their formulation when a treatment doesn’t have the intended effect? Where do we teach entry-level therapists how to seek and accept supervision – and how do we help them view supervision as a supportive opportunity to develop as a person and therapist?

And how well do we prepare entry-level clinicians to work well in a team, where they’ll come into contact with other clinicians seemingly “stepping into my scope”? In other words, where other clinicians have broad skills and experience, and who do what they do… Do we teach undergraduates how to be confident enough in their professional value that they stop being defensive?

Solutions, that’s right. I was going to suggest solutions.

Solutions include much more time working with other professions during training – and not just the ones handy to where they’re being trained. Solutions include ensuring the process of clinical reasoning is emphasised rather than the outcome. Solutions involve teaching undergraduates that they will carry on learning and that more experienced therapists from other professions will teach them a lot. Solutions might include ensuring that all students spend regular time with a supervisor who is not there to “correct” them, but instead to foster their self-reflection, to offer them support when they’re feeling overwhelmed, to encourage them to be OK to feel lost and not know the answers. And perhaps solutions involve recognising that chronic pain management is a specialist area of practice, and it is not musculoskeletal rehabilitation with a psychosocial twist.

Gordon, D. B., Watt-Watson, J., & Hogans, B. B. (2018). Interprofessional pain education-with, from, and about competent, collaborative practice teams to transform pain care. Pain Reports, 3(3), e663. https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000663

Lindblad, T. L. (2021, Jun). Ethical Considerations in Clinical Supervision: Components of Effective Clinical Supervision Across an Interprofessional Team. Behavior Analysis in Practice 14(2), 478-490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00514-y

O’Carroll, V., Owens, M., Sy, M., El-Awaisi, A., Xyrichis, A., Leigh, J., Nagraj, S., Huber, M., Hutchings, M., & McFadyen, A. (2021, May-Jun). Top tips for interprofessional education and collaborative practice research: a guide for students and early career researchers. J Interprof Care, 35(3), 328-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1777092

Perreault, K., Dionne, C. E., Rossignol, M., Poitras, S., & Morin, D. (2018, Jul). What are private sector physiotherapists’ perceptions regarding interprofessional and intraprofessional work for managing low back pain? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32(4), 525-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2018.1451829

Steuber, T. D., Andrus, M. R., Wright, B. M., Blevins, N., & Phillippe, H. M. (2021). Effect of Interprofessional Clinical Debates on Attitudes of Interprofessional Teams. PRiMER, 5, 14. https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2021.154149

Biopsychological pain management is not enough

I recently read a preprint of an editorial for Pain, the IASP journal. It was written by Prof Michael Nicholas, and the title reads “The biopsychosocial model of pain 40 years on: time for a reappraisal?” The paper outlines when and how pain became conceptualised within a biopsychosocial framework by the pioneers of interprofessional pain management: John Loeser (1982) and Gordon Waddell (1984). Nicholas points out the arguments against a biopsychosocial model with some people considering that despite it being a “holistic” framework, it often gets applied in a biomedical and psychological way. In other words, that biomedical concerns are prioritised, with the psychosocial factors relegated to second place and only after the biomedical treatments have not helped. Still others separate the relationships between “bio” “psycho” and “social” such that the interdependent nature of these factors is not recognisable.

Nicholas declares, too:

“… that cognitive behavioural therapy interventions that did not also include workplace modifications or service coordination components were not effective in helping workers with mental health conditions in RTW. That means, just like in the case of reducing time lost at school for children in pain, the treatment providers for adults in pain for whom RTW is a goal should liaise closely with the workplace. Unfortunately, as the studies from the systematic reviews examined earlier for a range of common pain therapies indicated, engaging with the workplace as part of the treatment seems to be rarely attempted.“

I find this confusing. In 1999 I completed my MSc thesis looking at this very thing: pain management combined with a focus on using pain management approaches in the workplace. The programme was called “WorkAbilities” and included visits to the workplace, liaison with employers and even job seeking for those who didn’t have a job to return to. The confusion for me lies in the fact that I’ve been doing pain rehabilitation within the workplace since the mid-1980’s – and that while today’s approach for people funded by ACC is separated from pain management (more is the pity), there are many clinicians actively working in pain rehabilitation in the context of returning to work here in New Zealand.

I’m further puzzled by the complete lack of inclusion by Nicholas of occupational therapy’s contribution to “the social” aspects of learning to live well with pain. This, despite the many studies showing occupational therapists are intimately connected with social context: the things people do in their daily lives, with the people and environmental contexts in which they do them. You see, occupational therapists do this routinely. We work with the person in their own environment and this includes home, work, leisure.

For those that remain unaware of what occupational therapists offer people with pain, I put it like this: Occupational therapists provide contextualised therapy, our work is in knowledge translation or generalising the things people learn in gyms, and in clinics, and helping people do these things in their life, their way.

An example might help.

Joe (not his real name) had a sore back, he’d had it for about three months and was seeing a physiotherapist and a psychologist funded by ACC (NZ’s national insurer). Not much was changing. He remained fearful of moving especially in his workplace where he was a heavy diesel mechanic and was under pressure from a newly promoted workshop manager to get things done quickly. Joe was sore and cranky, didn’t sleep well, and his partner was getting fed up. Joe’s problems were:

• guarding his lower back when moving
• fear he would further hurt his back if he lifted heavy things, or worked in a bent-over position, or the usual awkward positions diesel mechanics adopt
• avoiding said movements and positions, or doing them with gritted teeth and a lot of guarding
• poor sleep despite the sleep hygiene his psychologist had prescribed
• irritability
• thoroughly enjoying the gym-based exercise programme
• hating mindfulness and any of the CBT-based strategies the psychologist was offering him, because as he put it “I never did homework when I went to school, do you think I’m going to do it now? and this mindfulness thing doesn’t work!”

The occupational therapist visited Joe at home. She went through his daily routine and noticed that he didn’t spend any time on “fun” things or with his mates. His intimacy with his partner was scant because the medications he was on were making it hard for him to even get an erection, and his partner was scared he’d be hurt when they made love. Besides, she was fed up with all the time he had to spend going in to the gym after work when he wasn’t doing simple things around home, like mowing lawns, or helping with grocery shopping.

She went into his workplace and found it was a small four-person operation, with one workshop manager, two mechanics and one apprentice. The workshop was a health and safety hazard, messy and cramped, and open to the weather. The relationships between the team were strained with unpleasant digs at his failure to keep up the pace. The workshop manager said that he’d do his best to help Joe out – but in the end he needed to get the work out on time. The other mechanic, an old hand, meanwhile was telling Joe to suck it up and be a man, but also to watch out because Joe shouldn’t do as he’d done and shagged his back.

What did our erstwhile occupational therapist do? Absolutely nothing new that the physiotherapist and psychologist hadn’t taught Joe – but she worked out when, where and how Joe could USE the strategies they’d discussed in his life contexts. She went through the way he moved in the workshop and guided him to relax a little and find some new movement patterns to be able to do his work. She graded the challenges for him, and stayed with him as he experimented. She discussed alternating the tasks he did, interspersing tasks that involved bending forward with those where he could stand upright or even work above his head (in the pit). She discussed how he could use being fully present at various times during the day (mindfulness) to check in with his body and go for a brisk walk if he felt himself tensing up. She worked through communication strategies that they rehearsed and he implemented to let his manager know what he could – and could not – do.

They discussed his home life, and ways he could begin doing some of the household tasks he’d been avoiding, and she showed him how to go about this. They worked out the best time of day to do this – and to vary the exercise he did so that it wasn’t all about the gym. He started to walk over rough ground to get more confident for when he went fishing again, and he got himself a little stool to sit on from time to time. Joe and his occupational therapist talked about his relationship with his partner, and they met together with her so they could share what his back pain meant, the restrictions he had, what he could do, and how else they could be intimate. Joe was encouraged to rehearse and then tell his doctor about the effect of his meds on his sex life.

The minutiae of daily life, translating what is learned in a clinic to that person’s own world is, and always has been, the province of occupational therapy. It’s just a little sad that such a prominent researcher and author hasn’t included any of this in this editorial.

Just a small sample of research in which occupational therapists are involved in RTW.

Bardo, J., Asiello, J., & Sleight, A. (2022). Supporting Health for the Long Haul: a literature synthesis and proposed occupational therapy self-management virtual group intervention for return-to-work. World Federation of Occupational Therapists Bulletin, 1-10.

Berglund, E., Anderzén, I., Andersén, Å., Carlsson, L., Gustavsson, C., Wallman, T., & Lytsy, P. (2018). Multidisciplinary intervention and acceptance and commitment therapy for return-to-work and increased employability among patients with mental illness and/or chronic pain: a randomized controlled trial. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(11), 2424.

Cullen K, Irvin E, Collie A, Clay F, Gensby U, Jennings P, Hogg-Johnson S, Kristman V, Laberge M, McKenzie D. Effectiveness of workplace interventions in return-to-work for musculoskeletal, pain-related and mental health conditions: an update of the evidence and messages for practitioners. J Occup Rehabil 2018;28:1–15.

Grant, M., Rees, S., Underwood, M. et al. Obstacles to returning to work with chronic pain: in-depth interviews with people who are off work due to chronic pain and employers. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20, 486 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2877-5

Fischer, M. R., Persson, E. B., Stålnacke, B. M., Schult, M. L., & Löfgren, M. (2019). Return to work after interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation: one-and two-year follow-up study based on the swedish quality registry for pain rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 51(4), 281-289.

Fischer, M. R., Schults, M. L., Stålnacke, B. M., Ekholm, J., Persson, E. B., & Löfgren, M. (2020). Variability in patient characteristics and service provision of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation: A study using? the Swedish national quality registry for pain rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 52(11), 1-10.

Ibrahim, M.E., Weber, K., Courvoisier, D.S. et al. Recovering the capability to work among patients with chronic low Back pain after a four-week, multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program: 18-month follow-up study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20, 439 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2831-6

Marom, B. S., Ratzon, N. Z., Carel, R. S., & Sharabi, M. (2019). Return-to-work barriers among manual workers after hand injuries: 1-year follow-up cohort study. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 100(3), 422-432.

Michel, C., Guêné, V., Michon, E., Roquelaure, Y., & Petit, A. (2018). Return to work after rehabilitation in chronic low back pain workers. Does the interprofessional collaboration work?. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32(4), 521-524

Nicholas, M.K. (in press). The biopsychosocial model of pain 40 years on: time for a reappraisal? Pain.