Do People Seeking Care for Musculoskeletal Symptoms Experience Greater Agency and Better Experience Based on Written Information About Their Illness?

Objectives: Current patient-facing health information may unintentionally reinforce unhelpful and less adaptive mindsets regarding musculoskeletal symptoms. This prospective randomized trial evaluated the impact of psychologically-informed educational material, explicitly designed to promote healthier interpretations of bodily sensations according to cognitive science principles, on patient experience when compared to standard professional society materials.

Methods: In this trial, 133 adults presenting to an upper extremity specialist with one of eight common non-traumatic musculoskeletal conditions were randomly assigned to review health information produced by either: 1) a professional musculoskeletal society or 2) revised material created by the authors and psychologist collaborators. Participants completed surveys containing validated measures assessing personal health agency (PAM-13), perceived clinician empathy (JSPPPE) and emotional response to the material.

Results: There were no significant differences based on the type of material reviewed. However, on multivariable analysis, participants diagnosed with rotator cuff tendinopathy, ganglion cyst, or carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome reported more negative emotional responses compared to those with lateral epicondylitis, regardless of the type of written material reviewed.

Conclusions: Cognitively-informed musculoskeletal health information was acceptable to patients but did not yield measurable improvements in emotional response, agency, or perceived empathy when compared to standard material. During the visit, diagnosis-specific factors may influence patient reactions more than information framing.

Practice implications: Patients find clear, accessible material designed to cultivate the healthiest possible interpretation of bodily sensations acceptable and non-distressing. Future interventions should explore diagnosis-specific tailoring of information or repeated exposure to impact outcomes.

Level of evidence: II.