healthcare

When it hurts – but it’s important to keep doing


To date, despite years of research and billions of dollars, there is no satisfactory way to reduce pain in all people. In fact, our pain reduction treatments for many forms of persistent pain are pretty poor whether we look at pharmaceuticals, surgery, psychological treatments or even exercise. What this means is there are a lot of disillusioned and frustrated people in our communities – yet life carries on, and people do keep doing!

In an effort to understand what might help people who don’t “find a cure”, researchers and clinicians have been looking at mediators. Mediators are factors that explain a relationship between two variables. In the study I’m examining today, the predictor is pain intensity, and the criterion variable is participating in valued life activities (the things we want or need to do). The research question was whether self-efficacy and/or pain acceptance mediated engaging in valued life activities.

Ahlstrand, Vaz, Falkmer, Thyberg and Bjork (2017) used a cross-sectional study to explore relationships between the variables above in a group of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), drawn from three rheumatology registers in South East Sweden. Participants were required to have confirmed RA; be between 18 – 80 years; have had RA for four years or more; and have data included in the quality register – a total of 737 people agreed to take part (from a total of 1277 meeting entry criteria).

The researchers used the Swedish versions of Health Assessment Questionnaire (Wolfe, 1989) to establish degree of difficulty in daily activities, as well as the Valued Life Activities scale (Katz, Morris & Yellin, 2006); the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (Lorig, Chastain, Ung, Shoor & Holman, 1989); and the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (Wicksell, Olsson & Melin, 2009).
The statistical analyses included Chi-square tests of independence to identify significant differences in categorical factors due to gender, and steps were taken to establish whether there were gender differences for pain acceptance, self-efficacy and valued life activities. Pearson correlations were used to explore the relationships between acceptance, self efficacy and the valued life activities summary score, and then univariate regressions were undertaken to test each individual factor (eg pain, pain acceptance and self efficacy on valued life activities). Then, only the significant contributors in univariate analyses where entered into the hierarchical linear regression models. The tests were to establish whether self-efficacy would predict valued life activities after acceptance and pain scores were considered.

Finally, structural equation modelling was used to examine the contribution and influence of pain, activity engagement and self-efficacy on difficulties performing valued life activities. A note here: The authors used the structure of the ICF model to name the constructs in their structural equation model.

What did they find?

The people who responded to this survey tended to be less active than those who were on the registers but didn’t respond, so we need to keep this in mind when we interpret their results. They found that women reported slightly more pain than men, but there were no differences between men and women on all measures except that men scored more highly on the symptom control subscale of the self-efficacy measure. A point to note here is that, unlike the Pain Self Efficacy Questionaire, this measure includes attempts to reduce or control pain and/or disability, so it’s a slightly different construct from the PSEQ which measures confidence to engage in doing things despite the pain.

In terms of pain, pain acceptance, and arthritis self-efficacy, there were low to moderate associations between these and engaging in valued life activities. In fact, all pain acceptance and self-efficacy constructs measured in this study were associated with performing valued life activities. In other words, when people are confident, and willing to do things and engage in activities despite pain, the more valued activities they actually do. In fact, one of the more striking findings was a negative relationship between activity engagement and performing valued life activities – those with lower activity engagement scores reported great difficult engaging in what was important to them (not especially surprising given that both scales are about doing what’s important and getting on with life).

Now for the really geeky model: structural equation modeling found a rather complex relationship between all the variables – so complex I’m going to include the diagram.

What does it show? Well, there’s a relationship between pain intensity and valued activity engagement – the more pain, the less people do what’s important. BUT this is mediated by “personal factors” (remember the ICF labels). These personal factors are the pain acceptance activity engagement, self-efficacy for pain and self-efficacy for symptoms. Interestingly, pain willingness, the other subscale on the pain acceptance scale, wasn’t correlated.

Or is it surprising? To my mind there are some interesting conceptual issues with this study. Firstly, in a group that is self-selected and represents slightly more disability than those who didn’t respond, it’s not surprising that pain intensity and disability were correlated. This is something we see often pre-treatment in chronic pain settings. It’s also no surprise to me that the Arthritis self-efficacy scales were associated with valued activities, and with activity engagement – the arthritis self-efficacy scales ask “How certain are you that you can decrease your pain quite a bit?”; “How certain are you that you can that you can make a small-to moderate reduction in your arthritis pain by using methods other than taking extra medication?” amongst other questions. These suggest that pain reduction is a primary aim in arthritis management. The Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, however, is a very different beast. The Activity Engagement scale is about doing things that are valued (similar to the Valued Life Activity scale), while the  Willingness scale is about being willing to live life again despite pain – for example “I am getting on with the business of living no matter what my level of pain is.”; “It’s not necessary for me to control my pain in order to handle my life well.”.

While the authors argue that this study shows the value of self efficacy, stating “Active management promotes a sense of confidence, or self-efficacy, for dealing with pain that is associated with improved participation in daily activities and wellbeing.” I think the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale’s focus on controlling pain and other symptoms is incompatible with the constructs implied in the CPAQ. The ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) approach to pain is, as I’ve mentioned many times, a focus on engaging in valued activities irrespective of pain intensity – a more achievable goal for many than becoming confident to reduce pain as the ASES measures.

To their credit, the authors also indicate that men and women who continue to experience pain despite optimal medical treatment might benefit from strategies to increase their confidence to manage their own symptoms – but that a focus on pain control instead of participation despite pain is probably unhelpful. They go on to say that “by focusing on pain aceptance and activity engagement despite pain, self-management strategies may change the focus from pain control to a more flexible engagement in valued activities.” I couldn’t agree more – and I wish they’d used the Pain Self Efficacy Questionnaire instead of the ASES in this study. Maybe we need more discussion about appropriate measures in rheumatology research.

 

Ahlstrand, I., Vaz, S., Falkmer, T., Thyberg, I., & Björk, M. (2017). Self-efficacy and pain acceptance as mediators of the relationship between pain and performance of valued life activities in women and men with rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical Rehabilitation, 31(6), 824-834. doi:10.1177/0269215516646166

Katz PP, Morris A and Yelin EH. (2006). Prevalence and predictors of disability in valued life activities among individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of Rheumatology Diseases. 65: 763–769.

Lorig K, Chastain RL, Ung E, Shoor S and Holman HR. (1989). Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 32(1): 37–44.

Wicksell RK, Olsson GL and Melin L. (2009). The Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)-further validation including a confirmatory factor analysis and a comparison with the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia. European Journal of Pain, 13: 760–768.

Wolfe F. (1989). A brief clinical health assessment instrument: CLINHAQ. Arthritis & Rheumatism,  32 (suppl): S9

Advertisements

Do pain management programmes really influence “doing” in daily life?


Disability and coping are two of the most important targets in persistent pain management, along with distress and pain intensity (the latter perhaps being the most difficult to influence). A question, however, is whether existing measures of disability truly capture the activities or occupations that people most value. For example, if house cleaning is just not my thing, even if my functioning improved over the course of a programme, would I choose to spend that new capability on vacuum-cleaning or out there in the garden?!

The Westhaven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI)(Kerns, Turk & Rudy, 1985)  is a true workhorse of pain management measurement: It’s a measure that provides, via the subscales, an estimate of the complex inter-relationships involved in pain-related disability and distress. Three profiles of coping approach have been derived from the MPI indicating “Adaptive Coping” – the person is likely to continue to improve and engage in living well if they carry on as they are; “Interpersonally Distressed” – the person is experiencing difficulties with relationships and is feeling unsupported by others around them; and “Dysfunctional” – the person is struggling with their pain, and both disability and distress can feel overwhelming.

But the disability components of the MPI don’t really indicate the kinds of activities that people might be passionate about – or those that are relevant to their lives. The items are about general activities people “typically” do – in a North American setting. I know they’ve been validated in many different populations but they still represent a general idea of activity and function rather than the unique and idiosyncratic occupations that people do. (What's the difference? An occupation is the unique way I perform the important tasks of my day - the way I dash around the house while simultaneously cleaning my teeth, getting the dogs outside, making sure the curtains are opened and the appliances off just before I head out the door! We could call this "getting ready for work" but the way I do it, and the way you do it is probably very different!)

Why is that important? Well, because people value different occupations differently, and because values drive motivation, a broad measure of disability may not capture the true value of a pain management programme. And this is why the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (Law, Baptiste, McColl, Opzoomer, Polatajko & Pollock, 1990) is often used by occupational therapists to establish exactly what it is a person wants to be able to do. Goal Attainment Scaling is another option.

The study

In this study by Persson, Eklund, Lexell & Rivano-Fischer (2017), the aims were to assess longterm changes in MPI profiles over the course of a year; to look at associations between “Adaptive Coper” profiles at follow-up and improvements in occupational performance; and to look at factors at baseline that might be used to predict changes over time. Participants were, as usual, attending a tertiary pain management centre at a University hospital. They took part in a 21 day programme (oh the luxury of time!), and were seen by a team working together (oh the luxury of a co-located team!) including a psychologist, physician, physiotherapist, occupational therapist and social worker (oh for interprofessional teamwork!). The measures taken at pre and post were the MPI, COPM, and background demographic details.

Now here’s where the analysis gets pretty technical: dropout rates and pre-treatment differences amongst the MPI profiles were analysed using Matt-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-squared and independent t-test. Cross-tabs were used to describe the distribution of the MPI profiles. McNemar’s test was used to assess changes over time on each of the four profiles, and ultimately the participants were grouped into four profiles: never AC (Adaptive coper); losing AC; gaining AC, and stable AC, and these groupings were used to analyse associations between changes in MPI profile and changes on COPM from baseline to follow-up. And this, folks, is why occupational therapists NEED to learn statistical analyses! Because they went on to use univariate and multivariate logistic regressions to see whether demographic factors would predict these profiles at follow-up, incorporating satisfaction and performance scores on COPM.

What did they find?

More participants started the programme with a profile of dsyfunctional or interpersonally distressed than adaptive coper – and at both discharge and follow-up the adaptive coping group increased to be the largest subgroup. 20% of the participants ended up in the “gaining AC” group, 11% the “stable AC” group, 6% formed the “losing AC” group, and 63% were never in the adaptive coping group at all. Not so terrific in terms of broad outcome measures, but pretty consistent with other programmes around the world.

On the more individualised outcome measure of the COPM, people in the never AC group showed least clinically relevant improvement, both the stable AC and gaining AC groups showed more improvement on occupational performance and satisfaction with performance than the never AC group, while the stable AC group improved more than the losing AC group in terms of occupational performance changes.

Long-term changes showed those who started as AC were more likely to stay that way over time, and baseline scores for occupational performance were significantly associated with being AC at follow-up – in other words, people who felt OK about what they could do in terms of occupation, tended to become more capable and less disabled over time as measured by the MPI. More importantly, those people who had higher baseline scores on occupational satisfaction were 1.3 times more likely to shift to the AC group over time. “Clinically relevant improvements on performance and satisfaction with performance at 1-year follow-up, in occupations prioritized by the participants, were associated with having an AC profile at follow-up.” (p. 6).

Confidence in doing important occupations breeds confidence in other parts of living with persistent pain.

What does this all mean anyway?

Well, importantly, people who shifted from one of the other profiles to adaptive coping over a year showed clinically relevant improvements in occupational performance and satisfaction with performance – the authors suggest these findings show improvements on and satisfaction with “doing and performing” important occupations. Not being classified into adaptive coping at any time was associated with least improvement in occupational performance and satisfaction. There is an association between “doing/performing” and “coping/adapting” that hasn’t really been studied. Perhaps starting with things people enjoy instead of beating them over the head with things they’ve never been interested in could improve pain management outcomes. Pain management programmes DO influence doing in real life – if real life doing is used as therapy!

The authors also point out that “30–47% of participants who did not show an AC profile at follow-up still showed clinically relevant improvements on occupational performance and on
satisfaction with occupational performance.” (p. 8) This suggests that the MPI coping profiles only represent one part of the outcomes that are important to individuals: occupation being the individualised daily doings that people value very highly, and pointing to the need to explore individualised outcome measurement in more studies. Given that patient-centred pain management is based on individual goals, using only generic measures is likely to give misleading outcomes about treatment efficacy.

 

Kerns IVRD,TurkDC, Rudy TE. (1985) West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI). Pain. 23:345–56

Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, Opzoomer A, Polatajko H, Pollock N. (1990). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 57(2), pp82–7.

Persson, E., Eklund, M., Lexell, J., & Rivano-Fischer, M. (2017). Psychosocial coping profiles after pain rehabilitation: Associations with occupational performance and patient characteristics. Disability and Rehabilitation: An International, Multidisciplinary Journal, 39(3), 251-260.

Thinking the worst – and willingness to do things despite pain


Catastrophising, perhaps more than any other psychological construct, has received pretty negative press from people living with pain. It’s a construct that represents a tendency to “think the worst” when experiencing pain, and I can understand why people who are in the middle of a strong pain bout might reject any idea that their minds might be playing tricks on them. It’s hard to stand back from the immediacy of “OMG that really HURTS” especially when, habitually, many people who have pain try so hard to pretend that “yes everything is really all right”. At the same time, the evidence base for the contribution that habitually “thinking the worst” has on actually increasing the report of pain intensity, increasing difficulty coping, making it harder to access effective ways around the pain, and on the impact pain has on doing important things in life is strong (Quartana, Campbell & Edwards, 2009).

What then, could counter this tendency to feel like a possum in the headlights in the face of strong pain? In the study I’m discussing today, willingness to experience pain without trying to avoid or control that experience, aka “acceptance”, is examined, along with catastrophising and measures of disability. Craner, Sperry, Koball, Morrison and Gilliam (2017) recruited 249 adults who were seeking treatment at an interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme (at tertiary level), and examined a range of important variables pre and post treatment.  Participants in the programme were on average 50 years old, mainly married, and white (not a term we’d ever use in New Zealand!). They’d had pain for an average of 10.5 years, and slightly less than half were using opioids at the time of entry to the programme.

Occupational therapists administered the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, an occupational therapist-administered, semi-structured interview designed to assess a person’s performance and satisfaction with their daily activities (Law, Baptiste, McColl, Opzoomer, Polatajko & Pollock, 1990). The performance scale was used in this study, along with the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (one of my favourites – McCracken, Vowles & Eccelston, 2004); the Pain Catastrophising Scale (Sullivan, Bishop & Pivik, 1995), The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (Kroenke, Spitzer & Williams, 2001); and The Westhaven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (Kerns, Turk & Rudy, 1985).

Now here’s where the fun begins, because there is some serious statistical analysis going on! Hierarchical multiple regression analyses is not for the faint-hearted – read the info about this approach by clicking the link. Essentially, it is a way to show if variables of your interest explain a statistically significant amount of variance in your Dependent Variable (DV) after accounting for all other variables. Or, in this study, what is the relationship between pain catastrophising, acceptance and pain severity – while controlling for age, gender, opioids use, and pain duration. The final step was to enter a calculation of the interaction between catastrophising and acceptance, and to enter this into the equation as the final step. A significant interaction suggests one of these two moderates the other – and this is ultimately captured by testing the slopes of the graphs. Complex? Yes – but a good way to analyse these complex relationships.

Results

Unsurprisingly, pain catastrophising and acceptance do correlate – negatively. What this means is that the more a person thinks the worst about their pain, the less willing they are to do things that will increase their pain, or to do things while their pain is elevated. Makes sense, on the surface, but wait there’s more!

Pain catastrophizing was significantly (ps < .01) and positively correlated with greater perceived pain intensity, pain interference, distress due to pain, and depression – and negatively correlated with occupational therapist-rated functioning. Further analysis found that only pain catastrophising (not acceptance) was associated with pain severity, while both catastrophising and acceptance predicted negative effect (mood) using the WHYMPI, but when the analysis used the PHQ-9, both pain catastrophising and pain acceptance uniquely predicted depressive symptoms.  When pain interference was used as the dependent variable, pain acceptance uniquely predicted the amount of interference participants experienced, rather than catastrophising. The final analysis was using the performance subscale of the COPM, finding that pain acceptance was a predictor, while catastrophising was not.

What does all this actually mean?

Firstly, I found it interesting that values weren’t used as part of this investigation, because when people do daily activities, they do those they place value on, for some reason. For example, if we value other people’s opinions, we’re likely to dress up a bit, do the housework and maybe bake something if we have people come to visit. This study didn’t incorporate contexts of activity – the why question. I think that’s a limitation, however, examining values is not super easy, however it’s worth keeping this limitation in mind when thinking about the results.

The results suggest that when someone is willing to do something even if it increases pain, or while pain is elevated, this has an effect on their performance, disability, the interference they experience from pain, and their mood.

The results also suggest that catastrophising, while an important predictor of pain-related outcomes, is moderated by acceptance.

My question now is – what helps someone to be willing to do things even when their pain is high? if we analyse the CPAQ items, we find things like “I am getting on with the business of living no matter what my level of pain is.”;  “It’s not necessary for me to control my pain in order to handle my life well.”; and “My life is going well, even though I have chronic pain.”. These are important areas for clinicians to address during treatment. They’re about life – rather than pain. They’re about what makes life worth living. They’re about who are you, what does your life stand for, what makes you YOU, and what can you do despite pain. And these are important aspects of pain treatment: given none of us can claim a 100% success rate for pain reduction. Life is more than the absence of pain.

 

 

Craner, J. R., Sperry, J. A., Koball, A. M., Morrison, E. J., & Gilliam, W. P. (2017). Unique contributions of acceptance and catastrophizing on chronic pain adaptation. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24(4), 542-551.

Kerns IVRD,TurkDC, Rudy TE. (1985) West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI). Pain. 23:345–56.

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 16(9), 606-13.

Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, Opzoomer A, Polatajko H, Pollock N. (1990). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 57(2), pp82–7.

McCracken LM, Vowles KE, Eccleston C. (2004). Acceptance of chronic pain: component analysis and a revised assessment method. Pain. 107(1–2), pp159–66.

Quartana PJ, Campbell CM, Edwards RR. (2009) Pain catastrophizing: a critical review. Expert Reviews in Neurotherapy, 9, pp 745–58.

SullivanMLJ, Bishop SR, Pivik J. (1995). The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: development and validation. Psychological Assessment. 7:524–32.

One way of using a biopsychosocial framework in pain management – vi


I could write about a BPS (biopsychosocial) model in every single post, but it’s time for me to explore other things happening in the pain management world, so this is my last post in this series for a while. But it’s a doozy! And thanks to Eric Bowman for sharing an incredibly relevant paper just in time for this post…

One of the problems in pain management is that there are so many assessments carried out by the professionals seeing a person – but very little discussed about pulling this information together to create an overall picture of the person we’re seeing. And it’s this aspect I want to look at today.

My view is that a BPS approach provides us with an orientation towards the multiple factors involved in why this person is presenting in this way at this time (and what is maintaining their presentation), and by integrating the factors involved, we’re able to establish a way to reduce both distress and disability. A BPS approach is like a large-scale framework, and then, based on scientific studies that postulate mechanisms thought to be involved, a clinician or team can generate some useful hypotheses through abductive reasoning, begin testing these – and then arrive at a plausible set of explanations for the person’s situation. By doing so, multiple different options for treatment can be integrated so the person can begin to find their way out of the complex mess that pain and disability can bring.

The “mechanisms” involved range from the biological (yes, all that cellular, genetic, biomechanical, muscle/nerve/brain research that some people think is omitted from a BPS approach IS included!), to the psychological (all the attention, emotion, behavioural, cognitive material that has possibly become the hallmark of a BPS approach), and eventually, to the social (interactions with family, friends, community, healthcare, people in the workplace, the way legislation is written, insurers, cultural factors and so on). That’s one mess of stuff to evaluate!

We do have a framework already for a BPS approach: the ICF (or International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) provides one way of viewing what’s going on, although I can empathise with those who argue that it doesn’t provide a way to integrate these domains. I think that’s OK because, in pain and disability at least, we have research into each one of these domains although the social is still the most under-developed.

Tousignant-Laflamme, Martel, Joshi & Cook (2017) provide an approach to help structure the initial domains to explore – and a way to direct where attention needs to be paid to address both pain and disability.

What I like about this model (and I urge you to read the whole paper, please!) is that it triages the level of complexity and therefore the intervention needed without dividing the problem into “physical” and “psychosocial”. This is important because any contributing factor could be The One to most strongly influence outcome – and often an integrated approach is needed, rather than thinking “oh but the biological needs to be addressed separately”.

Another feature I like about this model is the attention paid to both pain and disability.

Beginning from the centre, each of the items in the area “A” is something that is either pretty common, and/or easily modified. So, for example, someone with low back pain that’s eased by flexion, maybe has some osteoarthritis, is feeling a bit demoralised and worries the pain is going to continue, has a job that’s not readily modified (and they’re not keen on returning) might need a physiotherapist to help work through movement patterns, some good information about pain to allay their worries, an occupational therapist to help with returning to work and sleeping, and maybe some medication if it helps.

If that same person has progressed to become quite slow to move and deconditioned, they’re experiencing allodynia and hyperalgesia, they have a history of migraine and irritable bowel, their sleep is pretty rotten, and they’re avoiding movements that “might” hurt – and their employer is pretty unhappy about them returning to work – then they may need a much more assertive approach, perhaps an intensive pain management programme, a review by a psychiatrist or psychologist, and probably some occupational therapy intervention at work plus a graded exposure to activities so they gain confidence despite pain persisting. Maybe they need medications to quieten the nervous system, perhaps some help with family relationships, and definitely the whole team must be on board with the same model of healthcare.

Some aspects are, I think, missing from this model. I’d like to see more attention paid to family and friends, social and leisure activities, and the person’s own values – because we know that values can be used to help a person be more willing to engage in things that are challenging. And I think the model is entirely deficits-based meaning the strengths a person brings to his or her situation aren’t incorporated.  Of course, too, this model hasn’t been tested in practice – and there are lots of gaps in terms of the measures that can be used to assess each of these domains. But as a heuristic or a template, this model seems to be practical, relatively simple to understand – and might stop us continuing to sub-type back pain on the basis of either psychosocial risk factors or not.

Clinicians pondering this model might now be wondering how to assess each of these domains – the paper provides some useful ideas, and if the framework gains traction, I think many others will add their tuppence-worth to it. I’m curious now to see how people who experience low back pain might view an assessment and management plan based on this: would it be acceptable? Does it help explain some of the difficulties people face? Would it be useful to people living with pain so they can explore the factors that are getting in the way of recovery?

Tousignant-Laflamme, Y., Martel, M. O., Joshi, A. B., & Cook, C. E. (2017). Rehabilitation management of low back pain – it’s time to pull it all together! Journal of Pain Research, 10, 2373-2385. doi:10.2147/JPR.S146485

One way of using a biopsychosocial framework in pain management – v


Theories are an important part of scientific development. Theories are essentially a collection of propositions or hypotheses that build a picture of what is in order to predict or control or somehow explain what’s going on. The extent to which a theory’s predictions represent what actually happens, given a set of circumstances, allows us to place more or less faith in the adequacy (or perhaps accuracy) of that theory. The problem with social theory is that there are so many complex interactions between variables that it’s very hard to generate hypotheses that represent what actually goes on in the world – so we end up with skinny theory that explains very little, and in turn this allows naysayers to argue “oh but it isn’t so”.

A biopsychosocial framework is one of those messy, complex theoretical models of “the way people are” that beg for people to argue against it. “It’s too complex”, “it’s too broad”, “it’s too reductionist”, “it’s not clinically useful” – all points against this way of viewing people. Yet, after years of using this model, I still find myself unable to find an alternative way of attempting to understand my two clinical questions: why is this person presenting in this way at this time (and what is maintaining their situation), and what can be done to reduce distress and disability?

Social theories are not something many health professionals are introduced to during their undergraduate training. We’re not trained to understand topics like structure of societies, organisations, groups and everyday lives and how they come about. We don’t typically get trained to think about power and who defines what is normal and abnormal, or who generates names for things – classifications, taxonomies, diagnoses. We rarely get to unpack the hidden discourse of who holds power in healthcare delivery, policy development – even social spending on health.

The people I typically see, living with persistent pain, are often from what posh folks call “the wrong side of the tracks”. Many people don’t have good employment histories. They may not have savings, they may live off a benefit. They are often not well-educated, having left school to do manual work. Their daily routines might be chaotic, and the idea of “keeping fit” or “eating well” doesn’t occur to them because their lives are about getting through the day, loving the family they have, and maybe looking towards a tomorrow where things might be different.

In pain management, we’ve not really spent much time examining the kinds of social relationships or social structures in which the people who really struggle with managing pain come from.  I’m not sure I’ve read very much research exploring, for example, whether people who have two jobs and live on a minimum wage experience greater difficulty developing skills in pacing their activities. I’ve not heard much from the people who live in this way expressing their understanding of what contributes to their distress and disability. I don’t see much about how uncertainty of employment pushes people into unsuitable work – while work is good for most people, what about those minimum wage jobs with unsavoury work environments, precarious employment tenure, cold, wet, smelly and physically demanding jobs with little prospect for the future? I don’t see very much about the effect of someone living on the bare bones of their threadbare trews going to see a medical specialist dressed immaculately in a bespoke suit and silk tie, with the handmade shoes and a language of healthcare that is incomprehensible to anyone other than another similarly clad specialist.

For a sociopsychobiological model of pain (yes, that’s a word, and no I haven’t got it backwards – see this) to gain traction, I think it’s timely to ponder the way our communities view persistent pain. Communities include our own healthcare communities – the manual therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, nursing, medical enclaves that use special language and dress in certain ways to demonstrate that we know our stuff. And we need to take a minute to understand the communities the people we hope to help come from.

At the stroke of a keyboard, the labels we give to someone – fibromyalgia, “degenerative changes”, “pre-existing condition”, “depression” – alter the treatment that person receives within healthcare. No question about it – if a person is receiving accident compensation (in NZ it’s ACC) and someone gives that kind of label to them, they’re going to the bottom of the health queue. The vagaries of our system mean that person doesn’t receive work-related rehab, they’re disentitled from ACC, no more weekly compensation, and oh yes they now go through the dehumanising process of attending the “Ministry for Social Development”.

I’m not arguing against the way our ACC legislation is written. And I’m not certain that receiving compensation is always a good thing. What I am pointing out is that when health professionals view the person in front of them as “other” – beneficiary, ACC claimant, pain patient – we are issuing a social declaration. And that means we’re exerting a degree of power over them and their lives. The labels we give have power. And this has a significant impact on the way that person views their pain, and the treatment they may receive.

I think until we begin to include, extend, and invite people living with pain to co-investigate their experience and to contribute to our health professional education (including scientific meetings), we’ll carry on thinking of ourselves as somehow superior to, and certainly more powerful than, the people we hope to treat. Hats off to Rajam Roose for developing the San Diego Pain Summit where this year she’s included a patient panel to give an insight into what it means to hear “your pain is just an output of your brain”. Can we have more please.

What can we do to reduce distress and disability? One thing we can do is begin a conversation about persistent pain being something that anyone can experience. It’s just that people without resources end up dealing with not only pain but also lack of power to change the way it’s treated.

One way of using a biopsychosocial framework in pain management – iv


And yes! There’s more to this series of posts on how I use a biopsychosocial model in practice!

Today’s post is about moving from a conceptual model to a practical model, or how we can use research in our clinical reasoning.

A biopsychosocial model (BPSM) as envisaged by Engel was a framework for clinicians to think about why this person is presenting in this way at this time (and what may be maintaining their situation), as well as what could be done to reduce distress and disability. Engel wanted clinicians to go beyond disease processes, isolated from the people experiencing them, and to explore aspects of how the person coped with everyday challenges (including health), the factors that influenced their decision that their health problem was indeed a problem, and the context of seeking healthcare.  He wanted clinicians to be scientific about how they generated hypotheses which could then be tested in clinical practice, and ultimately confirm or disconfirm the contribution of that factor.

The “bio” aspect of pain (which is a contentious word – I’ll comment in a bit) involves disease processes, trauma, all the biological aspects prior to conscious awareness of the “ouch” we know as pain. Theoretical developments in this area include all the work being conducted in terms of understanding anatomy and physiology of the human body, from molecular study (information transmission from one neurone to another); detailed understanding of spinal cord mechanisms; of the role of glia; of inflammatory processes; of genetic and epigenetic changes; of relationships between blood flow to and from various parts of the brain; of biomechanics; of normal healing processes – and so on. There’s no lack of information being generated by researchers undertaking basic science about the biological mechanisms involved in our experience of pain. Because I typically see people with persistent pain that has been present for maybe 12 months or more (usually much longer than that), I rely on the work of my colleagues to make a good diagnosis. Most people have had more investigation than is probably helpful for them, and I think we can use Clifford Woolf’s broad mechanisms as a reasonable stance when considering an underlying mechanism involved in a person’s pain. Essentially he identifies four main mechanisms: nociceptive, inflammatory, neuropathic and what is now known as “nociplastic” (where the nociceptive system appears to have a problem with processing information).

Yes, we can argue that our current state of understanding is incomplete and there is more to learn, but by working from these basic mechanisms I think we can begin to work on the “bio” part of a biopsychosocial model with a degree of confidence. For my work, anyway, these mechanisms seem to provide a reasonable framework from which the “bio” part of management can begin.

But this is where many clinicians start – and stop. Directly treating, for example, inflammation, certainly provides a reduction in pain – for example, my partner who takes Humera for his ankylosing spondylitis. He no longer experiences inflammatory pain and as his CRP levels reduced, so too did his pain. We can see similar effects when someone has a grotty old hip joint replaced, which removes nociceptive input, ultimately leaving them with a shiny new and painfree hip (in most cases). But as my partner found out, having no pain doesn’t immediately change old habits.

His situation is a nice illustration of the interaction between a disease process which responded really well to a drug that eliminates inflammation, and his beliefs and behaviour which wasn’t changed. Let me explain – once his drug kicked in and he had no pain, he found it odd not to have to think about his pain when climbing hills. It took him about a month or two to fully return to hill climbing in the way he’d done before his anky spond started. That’s right – no pain for a month or two, but that long before he felt confident to go about his activities. And he’s not a man who worries much about his pain!

To add some theory to this, his beliefs (that if he climbed hills a full speed he would inevitably end up with a very sore back) led to him having learned not to go a full pace (through both classical and operant conditioning). We could call this “pain-related fear and avoidance” – or “fear avoidance”. This is one theory that has been extensively researched, and we can integrate the hypotheses generated from this theory into our understanding of why my partner initially had some hesitation about climbing hills. Flowing on from this, we can consider treatments that have been found useful to address his hesitation.

The first treatment could be “explaining pain” to him. Now that wasn’t useful in this case because – oh yeah – his pain had gone! And although he knew his inflammatory pain wasn’t going to harm him (otherwise he’d never have been a high country fire fighter for 20 years despite his anky spond!), he didn’t like the after-effects of aggravating his pain. What helped was addressing his anxiety about the potential for a big flare-up – and this was primarily about beginning at a level that was just beyond his “normal” hill climb, and gradually progressing.

This superficially looks like “exercise” – but it’s exercise with a twist. My partner is as fit as a buck rat. His cardiovascular fitness was fine. Gradually increasing his hill walking wasn’t about increasing fitness – it was about helping him approach an activity that he was a tad concerned might flare his pain up, leading to a rotten night’s sleep (as it had in the past). In fact, this “treatment” was almost all about reducing avoidance by exposing him to things that increased his anxiety just a bit – enough for him to establish that the rotten sleep consequence didn’t happen.

So a biopsychosocial approach to his recovery involved the biological which quickly resolved his pain but left him with some concerns (reasonable ones I think) about pushing himself too hard. Addressing those concerns by taking a theory developed originally from phobia research, applying it to his situation and developing a treatment based on this theory, has led to his return to full participation. Using research-based information to address another part of “why is this person presenting in this way at this time, and what might be maintaining this situation” involves thinking beyond the disease process, and into understanding the problems the person identifies. It means thinking beyond a single discipline. It means reading widely and thinking creatively. That was a good part of Engel’s original proposition.

 

The new year begins


For some of you, the New Year has already started, but I’ve been in a lovely position where I’ve been on leave and haven’t yet started “work” – though the work of living is always present!

It’s traditional at this time to year to review the past year and plan for the coming months, so today’s post is a few musings on both.

Last year I noticed I’d been working on this blog for nearly 10 years! Astonishing really, because it was intended to be a learning experience for me during my recovery from a mTBI. It kinda grew like Topsy, and here I am 10 years down the road still blogging, albeit not so often as in the first couple of years. Over that time I’ve commented on a whole bunch of articles, made a few blunders, and put my thinking out in the public arena in a way that Academic journals just don’t really allow.

Some people would argue that my analysis is lightweight because I don’t leap into the depths of statistical analysis and research design in my commentaries. Others think I spend far too much time pondering the psychosocial and – how could I – omitting the biological. Some don’t like my reference to a biopsychosocial “model”, while others wonder what an occupational therapist is doing writing about pain psychology.

Blogging is a personal pursuit without written rules.  I muse about things as part of my own processing, plus to hopefully put some useful content out online for those who don’t have the pleasure of ready access to articles. I’m interested in some of the research questions even poorly conducted research articles can pose. I’m intrigued by the relevance (or not) of findings to my own setting here in NZ. I’m fascinated by connections drawn by authors as they ponder the implications of their research question, findings and works by other people.

I write about topics that mean something to me. It’s a completely personal selection, reflecting papers I’ve recently read, topics discussed in social media, patients I’ve seen, and conversations I’ve had.

What’s the impact of blogging on anything or anyone? Well, that depends on the kind of “impacts” you’re talking about. Through blogging I’ve made contacts with clinicians and researchers (and social media people) from around the world. I’ve been able to contribute to some pretty special meetings. I’ve been asked to speak, to write, and have been in touch with so many people who have got in touch with me because of this platform.

My aim apart from satisfying my own curiousity, is to share information and help to translate from academic journals to the real world. Information locked up in journals isn’t likely to help a clinician who can’t access them! And reading, reflecting on, and integrating research into daily clinical practice is difficult. I hope some of what I write about helps to bridge that gap.

Why would an occupational therapist from New Zealand do this? Well the first question I’ll answer is why an occupational therapist – why not? And because occupational therapists are possibly the ultimate scavengers in terms of taking something that’s been explored by another discipline and applying it to their client’s own real-world setting. Occupational therapists apply clinical reasoning to help people DO in the real world, so in a sense we’re really translational scientists, applying what’s known from research into the unique context of our clients and what they need and want to do. As an occupational therapist I think I bring some unique skills to the process of translating research to clinical practice, and besides, I’ve been in this field for a few years now, so I want to temper some of the enthusiasm for whizzbang new things with some of the wisdom from older research. You know, the 1980’s and 1990’s produced some really foundational research in pain and pain management.

Why from New Zealand? What does NZ have in common with the “rest of the world”? We’re a relatively well-developed country, with a partly socialised healthcare system that struggles with many of the same problems as other developed countries with or without a socialised healthcare system. NZ struggles with a biomedically-dominated model of disease holding sway, limiting the availability of allied health professionals who focus on a more wholistic (no, it’s not a dirty word) view of health and wellbeing. Allied health professionals everywhere in the world have difficulty being heard over the clamour of medicine with it’s one-shot, high-tech and super-simple view of disease. Our work is not sexy. Our work involves being with people, and our currency is the time we spend communicating with people. We don’t rely on a brief consultation and a quick flick of a prescription, a jab of a needle or a slice of the knife. Our work is about messy human life, behaviour change, taking the time to listen to what’s important to our clients/patients and step-by-patient-step supporting them to achieve their goals.

Over the 10 years I’ve been writing, I’ve constantly heard bickering between various factions in allied health care. Mainly <puts on teacher face & granny glasses> amongst physically-oriented therapists. Mainly about trivia as to whether treatment X is “better than” treatment Y. Niggling time and again over ridiculously inflated claims, “trademarking” approaches that have been in practice for oh at least 30 years, heated arguments about whether nociception is important (well of course it is, duh), whether biomechanics is important (well yeah, just not all the time wrt pain), whether tape/laterality/neural stretches/posture/”correct technique” and on ad nauseum is crucial. Meh. The differences between us all are far less than the commonalities – and it’s only with the commonalities that we’ll actually make a change to the way pain management is done here in NZ, or the rest of the world.

So this year I intend to focus even more on allied health pulling together, looking for what we have in common, drawing comparisons with a reductionist model (whether that’s biomedical or biomechanical), and encouraging us to get involved in system change. Are you with  me?

 

What should healthcare professionals learn?


I was lucky enough to spend two days attending the Placebo Symposium in Sydney in November this year – what an experience! A lineup of the cream of researchers exploring placebo and contextual responses (meaning responses) – all were excellent speakers and the focus was on both research and what this means to clinicians. If you’re keen to watch all you can for free over the next two weeks – click here: www.placebo.armchairmedical.tv.

At the end of the symposium, the speakers were asked a question by artist Eugenie Lee what subjects they would want taught if they had all the facilities and students with top class skills attending. This is what they said (it’s the Lennox Thompson translation, any mis-translations are entirely my responsibility):

  • Inform students about the contextual effects of every single clinical encounter and treatment
  • Help them focus on supporting patients to develop helpful expectations about treatments
  • Read Stanislovski (A good doctor [healthcare professional] is about being a good actor)
  • Always remember: we’re treating people not tissues
  • Use words wisely (they can heal – and harm)
  • Listen to your patients (and show them you’re listening)
  • Interprofessionalism is a thing
  • Talk with your patients not at them
  • Train together with your allied health colleagues
  • Ignore “placebo” or contextual effects at your peril
  • “Placebo” will eventually die – but the effect of context lives on in every treatment
  • Communication skills training needs more than a taste – to learn these skills takes time and intensity
  • Emphasise not just empathy – but also competence – these two factors contribute enormously to the “meet the therapist moment” (generating a sense of trustworthiness)
  • Introduce neurobiology from the beginning of the course
  • Learn [much much much more] about pain throughout the programme – not just the neurobiological systems but the psychological and social
  • Develop greater understanding of research methodologies for studying treatments and their effects

What were my take-away points from this whole conference?

As a longtime convert to Dan Moerman’s re-labeling to meaning response of what we often call “placebo effect”, the key points I took away were these (and you’ll see them pop up again and again in my blogs I’m sure):

  • Every healthcare encounter involves four things: a person seeking help, a person hoping to deliver help, a treatment ritual, and a social context. These can’t be divided if we hope to understand the outcome of treatment.
    • We need to understand the person seeking help – how they identify their illness, how they frame recovery, what their main concern is, and the context in which they are experiencing their illness.
    • We need to understand the person hoping to deliver help – how they view their contribution, how they view the person seeking help, the way they frame their treatment, the context in which they’re given the authority to help, and how they frame recovery.
    • We need to explore the treatment ritual – from the packaging, the meaning (to both parties) of the artifacts, the procedures, the words and actions – all of these have meaning, as marketing companies undoubtedly know (and exploit).
    • We need to examine the social context – the communities in which we live, the way illness and wellbeing are defined, the way healing is understood, how treatments are recognised, the impact of language and interpretation of that language and the way language evolves over time, how communities view treatment seekers and treatment givers, historical understanding and how this influences who, what, why and how therapeutic interactions are enacted.
  • The psychological is underpinned [as much as we can detect for now] by neurobiology, at one level of analysis. Neurobiological processes are incredibly complex and we don’t understand them very well. As we do, many of the influences decried as “woolly” or “fluffy” by some of my colleagues are, I think, going to be uncovered and found to be extraordinarily complex interactions between neurobiological systems. And yes, they will be complex – beyond most mortal’s understanding. This doesn’t mean they’re woo, or that they can be disregarded.
  • A other levels of analysis, sociopsychological processes are incredibly important contributors to the way treatments are sought – and treatments have effects. This means we’re unlikely to understand them in any simplistic sense. So to deride these processes as irrelevant or “unscientific” simply because they don’t fit in with an existing model of cause and effect (particularly if they don’t fit with a simple 1+2+3=6 model) probably means there’s a lot of learning needed. Simply because an empirical basic science or RCT doesn’t show “what’s going on” does not mean the concept under study is “not science” – it just means a scientific methodology that accommodates these complexities is needed. Not everything can be reduced to an experimental design – qualitative research is valid for some very important questions.
  • Communication – what and how we express meaning to another, and how this is interpreted and responded to by that other – occurs everywhere and all the time. Whether we attend to it or not. Meaning-making is something humans just do. So maybe as health professionals we should invest rather more than we do in training ourselves to be skilled at communicating. This means recording our interactions, reviewing them, getting to know the effect of what we communicate and training ourselves to be just as careful with our communication as we are with prescribing anything else. Because it could be that our communication is the most potent ingredient in our treatment.

“A good listener is not only popular everywhere, but after a while he knows something.” —Wilson Mizner

Manage pain – or aim to cure? Why I’m committed to pain management


Prominent researchers, clinicians and commentators seem to suggest that aiming to help people live with their pain is aiming too low. That pain cure or at least reduction is The Thing To Do. It’s certainly got a bit of a ring to it – “I can help get rid of your pain” has a sex appeal that “I can help you live with your pain” doesn’t have. And I can recognise the appeal. Persistent pain can be a scourge for those who live with it; it can eat away at every part of life. Imagine waking up one day to find NO PAIN! Excited much?

So why do I keep hammering on about this not very glamorous, certainly very challenging and at times unrewarding area of practice?

Here’s the thing. Persistent pain is extremely common. Not only is low back pain responsible for the most years lived with disability globally (Hoy, Bain, Williams, March, Brooks, Blyth, Woolf, Vos & Buchbinder, 2012), painful disorders like osteoarthritis increase with an aging population, and post-surgical pain is a problem for ~ 12% of people undergoing hip replacement, between 20 – 50% women undergoing mastectomy, and we all recognise the pain after limb amputation (between 50 – 80%) (Reddi & Curran, 2014). In New Zealand one person in five experiences persistent pain that goes beyond three months…

And our treatments, whether they be pharmaceuticals, procedures, surgeries or even groovy new things like mirror therapy or graded motor imagery don’t guarantee complete pain relief for 100% of patients. In fact, each new wave of therapy provides some pain relief for some people some of the time. And we shouldn’t be completely surprised about this because our nociceptive system is extraordinarily complex – and needs to be active because without pain we’re not likely to live long…or prosper. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that our nociceptive system with associated thoughts, emotions and behavioural responses has built-in redundancy simply because it’s there to protect us against potential harm. And every body system has at least one disorder/disease/dysfunction, so why would we think our “pain” system is immune?

So why do I spend time learning about management when I could be focused on reducing pain?

Well one reason is my clinical orientation. I’m an occupational therapist at heart (true, warped by contact with psychologists and physiotherapists), but essentially I’m about helping people do the things they need and want to do in daily life. My tools of trade are first of all focused on helping people work out the occupations (activities) that make them feel like themselves and then helping them do those things – and secondarily, and as a result of this focus, on helping people deal with their pain experience. Sometimes the latter involves helping people develop awareness of exactly how much or how little of their body and life is taken up with pain, helping them develop “wiggle room” so they can feel they have a little more space to be who they are, helping them find new ways to do those occupations that make them feel like themselves so the pain doesn’t take up quite so much room in their sense of self. Sometimes I do focus on obvious ways that people respond to their experience that may actually be making that experience much more unpleasant than it needs to be.

Another reason for me is that with a primary focus on pain reduction, we can forget the reason people want pain reduced – which is to go on and live life. And when we’re unsuccessful at reducing pain – where do those people go for help? What does it feel like to seem to “fail” a treatment again? and again? Who helps those people have good quality of life when they feel demoralised, the treatment options are exhausted and the clinicians who so desperately want to help them have no more ideas?

And as I mentioned above – there are no absolute cures for most forms of persistent pain. Nothing in my reading of the research around the world suggests that researchers have hit upon a jackpot and found a way to eliminate persistent pain 100%. What that means is there are likely to be people who will never experience complete relief from their pain. And others for whom the treatment is unavailable because of cost, side effects, intrusion on life, or because the treatment violates their values.

And because there are people who need to live with persistent pain until we have a “universal cure”, researchers and clinicians still need to refine and innovate the pain management strategies that will need to be used.

I’m not the person to make the decision about whether pain reduction or pain management is the best option. That’s not my job as a clinician or a researcher – I’m there to help people weigh up the costs and the benefits of treatments, and examine how best we can help those who can’t get rid of their pain. The thing is: if clinicians don’t know that there are viable ways of living well with pain (or they reject these as inferior or second class in comparison with pain reduction or elimination) how will they support their patients to make their own decisions? Or will they neglect to offer the approaches they don’t know about? And what kind of a choice is that?

 

 

 

Hoy, D., C. Bain, G. Williams, L. March, P. Brooks, F. Blyth, A. Woolf, T. Vos and R. Buchbinder (2012). A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis & Rheumatology 64(6): 2028-2037.

Reddi, D., & Curran, N. (2014). Chronic pain after surgery: pathophysiology, risk factors and prevention. Postgraduate medical journal, 90(1062), 222-227.

What’s the biggest barrier to learning more?


Reading and engaging with clinicians online and face-to-face, it’s clear to me that effectively integrating psychosocial factors into daily clinical reasoning, especially amongst physical or manual therapists, is a real challenge. There’s enough research around showing how poorly these factors are identified and then factored in to change what we do and how we do it for me to be convinced of this. What intrigues me, though, is why – given psychosocial risk factors have, in NZ, been around since 1997 – it’s still a problem.

It’s not ignorance. It’s not holding an alternative viewpoint. It’s not just that clinical reasoning models don’t seem to integrate these factors, or that our original training kinda partitioned the various “bits” of being human off – I think that it’s probably that we think we’re already doing well enough.

Image result for dunning kruger effect

This effect has a name – Dunning-Kruger effect. Now, don’t be put off by this term, because I know in some social media circles it’s used to bash people who are  maybe naive, or haven’t realised their lack of knowledge, and it can feel really awful to be told “well actually you’re ignorant”, or “you’re inflating your skill level”.  The thing is, it’s a common experience – we all probably think we’re great car drivers – but in reality we’re all pretty average.

The same thing occurs when we consider our ability to be:

  • empathetic
  • responsive
  • good listeners
  • client-centred
  • collaborative

Another important effect found in clinicians is that we believe our experience as clinicians means we’re better at aspects of clinical care, and especially at clinical reasoning. Over time we get better at recognising patterns – but this can actually be a problem for us. Humans are excellent at detecting patterns but as a result we can jump to conclusions, have trouble stopping ourselves from fixating on the first conclusion we draw, begin looking for things to confirm our hunch, overlook things that don’t fit with the pattern we’ve identified, and basically we begin to use stereotypes rather than really looking at the unique person sitting in front of us (see Croskerry, Singhal & Mamede, 2013a, b).

The effect of these biases, and especially our bias towards thinking we do better than we actually do (especially regarding communication skills and psychosocial factors) means we’re often completely unaware of HOW we communicate, and HOW poorly we pick up on psychosocial factors.

So often I’ve heard people say “Oh I use intuition, I just pick up on these psychosocial issues” – but the problem is that (a) we’re likely to over-estimate how well we pick up on them and (b) our intuition is poor. The risk for our patients is that we don’t identify something important, or alternatively, that we label something as a psychosocial risk factor when it’s actually irrelevant to this person’s problem.

Clinical reasoning is difficult. While recognising patterns becomes easier over time because we have a far broader range of patterns we’ve seen before, at the same time

  • research is expanding all the time (we can be out of date)
  • we can get stuck prematurely identifying something that isn’t relevant
  • we get hooked in on things we’ve just read about, things that happen rarely, things that remind us of something or someone else

Hypothetico-deductive reasoning is an alternative approach to clinical reasoning. It’s an approach that suggests we hold some ideas about what’s going on in our mind while collecting more information to test whether this is the case. The problem here is that we look for information to confirm what we think is happening – rather than looking for something to disconfirm, or test, the hypothesis we hold. So, for example, we might observe someone’s pain behaviour and think to ourselves “oh that person is doing that movement because of a ‘dysfunctional movement pattern’. We can assume that the reason for this movement pattern is because of underlying dysfunction of some sort – but we fail to test that assumption out to see whether it might in fact be a movement pattern developed because someone told the person “this is the way you should move”, or the person is moving that way because of their beliefs about what might happen if they move differently.

The problem with intuition and these other cognitive biases is that they simplify our clinical reasoning, and they reduce effort, so they’re easy traps to fall into. What seems to help is slowing down. Deliberately putting a delay in between collecting information and making a decision. Holding off before deciding what to do. Concurrently, we probably need to rely less on finding “confirming” information – and FAR more on collecting information across a range of domains, some of which we may not think are relevant.

That’s the tough bit. What we think is relevant helps us narrow down our thinking – great for reducing the amount of information we need to collect, but not so great for testing whether we’ve arrived at a reasonable conclusion. My suggested alternative is to systematically collect information across all the relevant domains of knowledge (based on what’s been found in our research), wait a bit and let it settle – then and only then begin to put those bits and pieces together.

Why doesn’t it happen? Well, we over-estimate how well we do this assessment process. We do jump to conclusions and sometimes we’re right – but we wouldn’t know whether we were right or not because we don’t check out alternative explanations. We’re pushed by expectations from funders – and our clients – to “set goals” or “do something” at the very first assessment. We feel guilty if we don’t give our clients something to take away after our initial assessment. We want to look effective and efficient.

Great quote?

For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong. H.L. Mencken.

If you’d like to question your own practice, try this: Record your session – and transcribe that recording. Notice every time you jump in to give advice before you’ve really heard your client. Notice how quickly you form an impression. Examine how often you look for disconfirmation rather than confirmation. See how often you ask about, and explore, those psychosocial factors. It’s tough to do – and sobering – but oh how much you’ll learn.

Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013). Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(Suppl 2), ii58-ii64. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712

Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013). Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(Suppl 2), ii65-ii72. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713