Does Discussing Patient-reported Outcome Measures Increase Pain Self-efficacy at an Orthopaedic Visit? A Prospective, Sequential, Comparative Series.

Abstract

Background: Pain self-efficacy, or the ability to carry out desired activities in the presence of pain, can affect a patient's ability to function before and after orthopaedic surgery. Previous studies suggest that shared decision-making practices such as discussing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can activate patients and improve their pain self-efficacy. However, the ability of PROMs to influence pain self-efficacy in patients who have undergone orthopaedic surgery has yet to be investigated.

Questions/purposes: (1) Is immediately discussing the results of a PROM associated with an increase pain self-efficacy in new patients presenting to the orthopaedic surgery clinic? (2) Is there a correlation between patient resilience or patient involvement in decision-making in changes in pain self-efficacy?

Methods: This was a prospective, sequential, comparative series completed between February to October 2023 at a single large tertiary referral center at a multispecialty orthopaedic clinic. Orthopaedic subspecialties included total joint arthroplasty, spine, hand, sports, and trauma. The first 64 patients underwent standard care, and the following 64 had a conversation with their orthopaedic surgeon about their PROMs during the initial intake visit. We collected scores from the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function form (PF-SF10a) and data on demographic characteristics before the visit. The PSEQ is a validated PROM used to measure pain self-efficacy, while the BRS measures the ability of patients to recover from stress, and the PROMIS PF-SF10a is used to assess overall physical function. PROMs have been utilized frequently for their ability to report the real-time physical and psychological well-being of patients. In the standard care group, the PROMIS PF-SF10a score was not discussed with the patient. In the PROMs group, the physician discussed the PROMIS PF-SF10a score using a script that gave context to the patient's score. Additional conversation about the patient's score was permitted but not required for all patients. Scores from the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION-5) instrument were recorded during the visit as a measure of patient involvement in clinical decision-making. After the visit, both groups completed the PSEQ. The primary outcome was change in the PSEQ. Change in pain self-efficacy was recorded as greater or less than the minimum clinically important difference, previously defined at 8.5 points for the PSEQ [ 10 ]. The secondary outcomes were correlation between PSEQ change and the BRS or OPTION-5.

Results: Between the PROMs and standard care groups, there was no difference in the change in PSEQ scores from before the visit to after (mean ± SD change in control 4 ± 10 versus change in PROMs group 3 ± 7, mean difference 1 [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.0 to 4.0]; p = 0.29). Fifty-six percent (36 of 64) of patients in the standard care group demonstrated an increase in pain self-efficacy (of whom 22% [14 of 64] had clinically important improvements), and 59% (38 of 64) of patients in the PROMs group demonstrated an increase in pain self-efficacy (of whom 19% [12 of 64] had clinically important improvements). In the control group, there was no correlation between the change in PSEQ score and resiliency (BRS score r = -0.13 [95% CI -0.36 to 0.12]; p = 0.30) or patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION-5 r = 0.003 [95% CI -0.24 to 0.25]; p = 0.98). Similarly, in the PROMs group, there was no correlation between the change in PSEQ score and resiliency (BRS score r = -0.10 [95% CI -0.33 to 0.16]; p = 0.45) or patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION-5 r = -0.02 [95% CI -0.26 to 0.23]; p = 0.88).

Conclusion: Discussing PROMs results (PROMIS PF-SF10a) at the point of care did not increase pain self-efficacy during one visit. Therefore, surgeons do not need to discuss pain self-efficacy PROM scores in order to influence patient pain self-efficacy. While PROMs remain valuable tools for assessing patient outcomes, further work may assess whether the collection of PROMs itself may increase pain self-efficacy or whether longitudinal discussion of PROMs with patients changes pain self-efficacy.

Level of evidence: Level II, therapeutic study.