Search

Abstract Background Illness perceptions can affect the way people with musculoskeletal pain emotionally and behaviorally cope with their health condition. Understanding patients illness perceptions may help facilitate patient-centered care. The purpose of this study was to explore illness perceptions and the origin of those perceptions in people with chronic disabling non-specific neck pain seeking primary care. Methods A qualitative study using a deductive and inductive analytical approach was conducted in 20 people with persistent (> 3 months) and disabling (i.e., Neck Disability Index ≥ 15) neck pain. Using a semi-structured format, participants were interviewed about their illness perceptions according to Leventhal’s Common Sense Model. Purposive sampling and member checking were used to secure validity of study results. Results Participants reported multiple symptoms, thoughts and emotions related to their neck pain, which continuously required attention and action. They felt trapped within a complex multifactorial problem. Although some participants had a broader biopsychosocial perspective to understand their symptoms, a biomedical perspective was dominant in the labelling of their condition and their way of coping (e.g., limiting load, building strength and resilience, regaining mobility, keep moving and being meaningful). Their perceptions were strongly influenced by information from clinicians. Several participants indicated that they felt uncertain, because the information they received was contradictory or did not match their own experiences. Conclusion Most participants reported that understanding their pain was important to them and influenced how they coped with pain. Addressing this ‘sense making process’ is a prerequisite for providing patient-centered care.

Abstract Background Increasing pre-clinical evidence suggests that aerobic exercise positively modulates neuroimmune responses following traumatic nerve injury. However, meta-analyses on neuroimmune outcomes are currently still lacking. This study aimed to synthesize the pre-clinical literature on the effects of aerobic exercise on neuroimmune responses following peripheral nerve injury. Methods MEDLINE (via Pubmed), EMBASE and Web of Science were searched. Controlled experimental studies on the effect of aerobic exercise on neuroimmune responses in animals with a traumatically induced peripheral neuropathy were considered. Study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Results were analyzed using random effects models and reported as standardized mean differences. Outcome measures were reported per anatomical location and per class of neuro-immune substance. Results The literature search resulted in 14,590 records. Forty studies were included, reporting 139 comparisons of neuroimmune responses at various anatomical locations. All studies had an unclear risk of bias. Compared to non-exercised animals, meta-analyses showed the following main differences in exercised animals: (1) in the affected nerve, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) levels were lower (p = 0.003), while insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) (p

Abstract Background Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) are commonly assessed to quantify mechanical sensitivity in various conditions, including migraine. Digital and analogue algometers are used, but the concurrent validity between these algometers is unknown. Therefore, we assessed the concurrent validity between a digital and analogue algometer to determine PPTs in healthy participants and people with migraine. Methods Twenty-six healthy participants and twenty-nine people with migraine participated in the study. PPTs were measured interictally and bilaterally at the cephalic region (temporal muscle, C1 paraspinal muscles, and trapezius muscle) and extra-cephalic region (extensor carpi radialis muscle and tibialis anterior muscle). PPTs were first determined with a digital algometer, followed by an analogue algometer. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC3.1) and limits of agreement were calculated to quantify concurrent validity. Results The concurrent validity between algometers in both groups was moderate to excellent (ICC3.1 ranged from 0.82 to 0.99, with 95%CI: 0.65 to 0.99). Although PPTs measured with the analogue algometer were higher at most locations in both groups (p

Abstract Background The Pictorial Fear of Activity Scale-Cervical (PFActS-C) is a reliable and valid instrument to assess fear of movement in people with whiplash associated disorders. It is not available in Dutch and has not been evaluated in other neck pain populations. This study aimed to systematically translate the PFActS-C into Dutch and evaluate the psychometric properties of this Dutch Language Version (DLV) in people with non-specific neck pain. Methods The PFActS-C was translated according to international guidelines. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, floor and ceiling effects, face validity and construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity by hypotheses testing and structural validity by confirmatory and exploratory factor-analyses) of the PFActS-C-DLV were tested in 125 people with non-specific neck pain. Results The PFActS-C-DLV showed good to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.98) and stability over time (ICC: 0.90 [95%CI: 0.82–0.93). Four out of five a priori formulated hypotheses regarding related (convergent validity) and unrelated (discriminant validity) constructs were confirmed. However, the confirmatory factor analysis could not confirm the expected 1-factor solution. Furthermore, the exploratory factor analyses revealed that also a higher factor solution would not lead to a good fit of the model. Conclusions The PFActS-C-DLV is a reliable region-specific instrument for people with non-specific neck pain. The construct validity was supported, based on hypotheses testing. However, factor analyses could not confirm a 1-factor solution, so the underlying construct of the PFActS-C-DLV remains unclear. Given the PFActS-C’s photographic format, we believe these findings also have relevance for the original English version.

Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) is the second highest cause of health burden in China. Delayed recovery, poor clinical outcomes and persistence of LBP are associated with negative pain beliefs about LBP. Chinese philosophies are nested into the daily life of people in China, which is likely to influence pain beliefs. However, there is lack of knowledge about people’s discourses regarding their LBP in China. The primary aim of this study was to explore the discourses underlying the beliefs of people in China about what causes their persistent or recurrent LBP. The secondary aim was to investigate the sources of these pain beliefs. Methods People (n = 152) from South Central, East and North Mainland China with LBP completed an online survey about what they believed caused their persistent or recurrent LBP and where these understandings came from. Potential causes of persistent or recurrent LBP were explored qualitatively using discourse analysis. The sources of these discourses were assessed by descriptive statistics with conventional content analysis. Results Five discourses were identified to underpin participants’ beliefs about what caused their persistent or recurrent LBP, namely: (1) biomedical problems (66.4%), (2) unbalanced lifestyle (48.7%), (3) menstruation and ‘kidney’ status (9.2%), (4) the ‘Five Elements’ imbalance (7.9%), and (5) energy status (5.9%). Most participants responded that their pain beliefs were based on information derived from healthcare professionals (59.2%), followed by the internet (24.3%) and family (23.0%). Conclusions People from moderately and well-developed parts of Mainland China think predominantly in line with a Western biomedical viewpoint about their LBP. Traditional Chinese medicine related pain beliefs mainly to the concept of ‘balance’ were evident on contemporary Chinese society’s understandings of LBP. These cultural beliefs could be relevant to consider in LBP management and involve healthcare professionals, family and patient in this process.

Abstract Background People with migraine have localised (i.e., cephalic) mechanical sensitivity. There is uncertainty regarding widespread (i.e., extra-cephalic) mechanical sensitivity and variations in mechanical sensitivity throughout the migraine cycle. Therefore, this study aimed (1) to comprehensively assess mechanical sensitivity in both cephalic and extra-cephalic regions during the preictal, ictal, postictal and interictal phases; and (2) to compare these findings with mechanical sensitivity at corresponding time-points and locations in healthy participants. Methods According to sample size calculations, 19 people with migraine and 19 matched healthy volunteers participated in a prospective longitudinal study. Pressure pain thresholds were evaluated in three cephalic regions (temporalis, upper trapezius and C1 paraspinal muscles) and two extra-cephalic regions (extensor carpi radialis and tibialis anterior muscle) with a digital algometer during the four phases of the migraine cycle in people with migraine and at corresponding intervals and locations in healthy participants. Linear mixed model analyses with a random intercept were used. Results People with migraine had increased mechanical sensitivity in cephalic and extra-cephalic regions in all phases of the migraine cycle compared to healthy participants. Furthermore, this mechanical sensitivity was more severe in the preictal, ictal and postictal phase compared to the interictal phase in cephalic and extra-cephalic regions. Conclusion People with migraine have localised as well as widespread mechanical sensitivity compared to healthy participants. This sensitivity is even more pronounced immediately before, during and after a migraine attack.

Abstract Background Peripheral neuropathies are a common complication in patients with diabetes. Changes in nerve function and central pain processing can be quantified by assessing pain thresholds and pain modulation mechanisms. Aim To summarise the literature which compares pain thresholds and pain modulation mechanisms in people with diabetes without neuropathies, with non-painful diabetic neuropathies and with painful diabetic neuropathies, and in people without diabetes. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. Terms related to diabetes, pain thresholds and pain modulation mechanisms will be combined in a structured search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and PEDro. Publications on adults (18 years and older) with diabetes and at least one pain threshold measure following thermal, mechanical or electrical stimuli and/or at least one pain modulation mechanisms (temporal summation or conditioned pain modulation) with a comparison group will be considered. There will be no restriction regarding language or year of publication. One investigator will screen records based on title and abstract (ESS). Two independent investigators (ESS and MC) will select full-text papers and assess risk of bias using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Potential disagreements will be resolved with a third investigator (LB). One investigator (ESS) will extract all data and a second investigator (MS) will extract data for 20% of the papers to verify accuracy of the process. A sensitivity analysis for publication bias will be conducted. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis will summarise the evidence on pain threshold profiles and pain modulation mechanisms in people with diabetes without and with neuropathies (both painful and non-painful). This will provide more insight in the clinical presentation and progression of diabetic neuropathies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018088173