ijerph-logo

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

Special Issue "Scientific Advances and Future Directions of Chronic Pain: Prevalence, Impact on Daily Life, and Treatment"

A special issue of International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-4601). This special issue belongs to the section "Health Behavior, Chronic Disease and Health Promotion".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 20 January 2024 | Viewed by 5296

Special Issue Editors

1. Institut d’Ingénierie de la Santé-UFR de Médecine, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, rue des Louvels, 80036 Amiens, France
2. Laboratoire PERITOX (UMR-I 01, Unité mixte INERIS), Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Santé, Présidence, Chemin du Thil, 80000 Amiens, France
Interests: occupational and environmental physiology; cumulative trauma disorders
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
Interests: examin musculosketal pain from a broad biopsychosocial perspective in several groups of patients suffering from pain and on performing artists at high risk to develop musculosketal pain

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Chronic pain has significant negative effects on functionality and quality of life. Chronic pain remains a major health problem and socio-economic burden given the high prevalence rates (i.e., between 30% and 51% of adults [1–3] and 56% of elderly people [1]). Multi-modal interventions covering the biopsychosocial components of pain are the gold-standard treatment for chronic pain [4–6]. In a patient-centered approach, all influencing biological, psychological and interpersonal factors should be taken into account [7]. The importance of including self-management strategies (i.e., the individual's ability to manage the symptoms, treatment, physical and psychological consequences and lifestyle changes inherent to living with a chronic condition) has been emphasized [8,9]. Self-management approaches in combination with behavioral changes (e.g., an active lifestyle) have positive effects on pain and function in patients with chronic conditions [10–13]. However, despite implementation strategies, chronic pain management remains guideline-discordant, characterized by the overuse of medical imaging and medication [14–16], advice to restrict work and activities [17] and insufficient attention paid to psychosocial risk factors [18,19]. An interesting option is the use of electronic health (eHealth) programs, as these can deliver fast and tailored information to individuals in a cost-effective way. Several well-designed clinical trials have already shown beneficial effects of eHealth programs for the management of chronic pain [11,20].

References

  1. Jackson, T.; Thomas, S.; Stabile, V.; Han, X.; Shotwell, M.; McQueen, K. Prevalence of chronic pain in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015385 (Suppl. 2), S10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60805-4.
  2. Fayaz, A.; Croft, P.; Langford, R.M.; Donaldson, L.J.; Jones, G.T. Prevalence of chronic pain in the UK: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population studies. BMJ Open 20166, e010364. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010364.
  3. Cohen, S.P.; Vase, L.; Hooten, W.M. Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances. Lancet 2021397, 2082–2097. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00393-7.
  4. Pedersen, M.B.; Thinggaard, P.; Geenen, R.; Rasmussen, M.U.; De Wit, M.; March, L.; Mease, P.; Choy, E.; Conaghan, P.G.; Simon, L.; et al. Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation for Inflammatory Arthritis and Osteoarthritis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Trials. Arthritis Care Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.24816.
  5. Kamper, S.J.; Apeldoorn, A.T.; Chiarotto, A.; Smeets, R.J.E.M.; Ostelo, R.W.J.G.; Guzman, J.; van Tulder, M.W. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2015350, h444–h444. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h444.
  6. Elbers, S.; Wittink, H.; Konings, S.; Kaiser, U.; Kleijnen, J.; Pool, J.; Köke, A.; Smeets, R. Longitudinal outcome evaluations of Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment programmes for patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. J. Pain 202226, 310–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1875.
  7. Geenen, R.; Overman, C.L.; Christensen, R.; Åsenlöf, P.; Capela, S.; Huisinga, K.L.; Husebø, M.E.P.; Köke, A.J.A.; Paskins, Z.; Pitsillidou, I.A.; et al. EULAR recommendations for the health professional’s approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis. Dis. 201877, 797–807. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212662.
  8. Carnes, D.; Homer, K.E.; Miles, C.L.; Pincus, T.; Underwood, M.; Rahman, A.; Taylor, S.J. Effective delivery styles and content for self-management interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain: A systematic literature review. Pain 201228, 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1097/ajp.0b013e31822ed2f3.
  9. Nicholas, M.K.; Asghari, A.; Blyth, F.M.; Wood, B.M.; Murray, R.; McCabe, R.; Brnabic, A.; Beeston, L.; Corbett, M.; Sherrington, C.; et al. Long-term outcomes from training in self-management of chronic pain in an elderly population: a randomized controlled trial. Pain 2017158, 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000729.
  10. Miller, J.; MacDermid, J.C.; Walton, D.M.; Richardson, J. Chronic Pain Self-Management Support With Pain Science Education and Exercise (COMMENCE) for People With Chronic Pain and Multiple Comorbidities: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Med. Rehabilitation 2020101, 750–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.016.
  11. Smith, J.; Faux, S.G.; Gardner, T.; Hobbs, M.J.; A James, M.; E Joubert, A.; Kladnitski, N.; Newby, J.M.; Schultz, R.; Shiner, C.T.; et al. Reboot Online: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing an Online Multidisciplinary Pain Management Program with Usual Care for Chronic Pain. Pain Med. 201920, 2385–2396. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz208.
  12. Manning, V.L.; Hurley, M.V.; Scott, D.L.; Coker, B.; Choy, E.; Bearne, L.M. Education, Self-Management, and Upper Extremity Exercise Training in People With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arthritis Care Res. 201466, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22102.
  13. Nicholas, M.K.; Asghari, A.; Blyth, F.M.; Wood, B.M.; Murray, R.; McCabe, R.; Brnabic, A.; Beeston, L.; Corbett, M.; Sherrington, C.; et al. Self-management intervention for chronic pain in older adults: A randomised controlled trial. Pain 2013154, 824–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.02.009.
  14. Mafi, J.N.; McCarthy, E.P.; Davis, R.B.; Landon, B.E. Worsening Trends in the Management and Treatment of Back Pain. JAMA Intern. Med. 2013173, 1573–1581. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.8992.
  15. Webster, B.S.; Bauer, A.Z.; Choi, Y.; Cifuentes, M.; Pransky, G.S. Iatrogenic Consequences of Early Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Acute, Work-Related, Disabling Low Back Pain. Spine 201338, 1939–1946. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a42eb6.
  16. Deyo, R.A.; Mirza, S.K.; Turner, J.A.; Martin, B.I. Overtreating chronic back pain: Time to back off?  Board Fam. Med. 200922, 62–68. .
  17. Darlow, B.; Fullen, B.; Dean, S.; Hurley, D.; Baxter, G.; Dowell, A. The association between health care professional attitudes and beliefs and the attitudes and beliefs, clinical management, and outcomes of patients with low back pain: A systematic review. Pain 201216, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.06.006.
  18. Roussel, N.A.; Neels, H.; Kuppens, K.; Leysen, M.; Kerckhofs, E.; Nijs, J.; Beetsma, A.J.; Van Wilgen, C.P. History taking by physiotherapists with low back pain patients: are illness perceptions addressed properly? Disability Rehabilitation 201638, 1268–1279. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1077530.
  19. Shaw, W.S.; Pransky, G.; Winters, T.; Tveito, T.H.; Larson, S.M.; Roter, D.L. Does the presence of psychosocial “yellow flags” alter patient-provider communication for work-related, acute low back pain? Environ. Med. 200951, 1032–1040. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0b013e3181b2f539.
  20. Ruehlman, L.S.; Karoly, P.; Enders, C. A randomized controlled evaluation of an online chronic pain self management program. Pain 2012153, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2011.10.025.

Dr. Frédéric Telliez
Dr. Nathalie Roussel
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2500 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • chronic pain
  • biopsychosocial
  • management
  • quality of life
  • eHealth

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

Article
How Do Physiotherapists Explain Influencing Factors to Chronic Low Back Pain? A Qualitative Study Using a Fictive Case of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(10), 5828; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105828 - 16 May 2023
Viewed by 1366
Abstract
Background: While pain is influenced by multiple factors including psychosocial factors, previous research has shown that physiotherapists still favour a biomedical approach. Purpose: To evaluate: (1) how physiotherapists explain the patient’s chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP); (2) whether physiotherapists use one or [...] Read more.
Background: While pain is influenced by multiple factors including psychosocial factors, previous research has shown that physiotherapists still favour a biomedical approach. Purpose: To evaluate: (1) how physiotherapists explain the patient’s chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP); (2) whether physiotherapists use one or multiple influencing factors, and (3) whether these factors are framed in a biopsychosocial or biomedical approach. Materials and methods: This exploratory qualitative study uses a vignette depicting chronic non-specific LBP and employs a flexible framework analysis. Physiotherapists were asked to mention contributing factors to the pain based on this vignette. Five themes were predefined (“Beliefs”, “Previous experiences”, “Emotions”, “Patients behaviour”, “Contextual factors”) and explored. Results: Physiotherapists use very brief explanations when reporting contributing factors to chronic pain (median 13 words). Out of 670 physiotherapists, only 40% mentioned more than two different themes and 2/3rds did not see any link between the patients’ misbeliefs and pain. Only a quarter of the participants mentioned the patient’s worries about pain and movement, which is considered to be an important influencing factor. Conclusion: The lack of a multifactorial approach and the persistent biomedical beliefs suggest that it remains a challenge for physiotherapists to fully integrate the biopsychosocial framework into their management of chronic LBP. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Management of Low Back Pain: Do Physiotherapists Know the Evidence-Based Guidelines?
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(9), 5611; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20095611 - 23 Apr 2023
Viewed by 2157
Abstract
Background: Clinical practice guidelines promote bio-psychosocial management of patients suffering from low back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to examine the current knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of physiotherapists about a guideline-adherent approach to LBP and to assess the ability of [...] Read more.
Background: Clinical practice guidelines promote bio-psychosocial management of patients suffering from low back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to examine the current knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of physiotherapists about a guideline-adherent approach to LBP and to assess the ability of physiotherapists to recognise signs of a specific LBP in a clinical vignette. Methods: Physiotherapists were recruited to participate in an online study. They were asked to indicate whether they were familiar with evidence-based guidelines and then to fill in the Health Care Providers’ Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), as well as questions related to two clinical vignettes. Results: In total, 527 physiotherapists participated in this study. Only 38% reported being familiar with guidelines for the management of LBP. Sixty-three percent of the physiotherapists gave guideline-inconsistent recommendations regarding work. Only half of the physiotherapists recognised the signs of a specific LBP. Conclusions: The high proportion of physiotherapists unfamiliar with guidelines and demonstrating attitudes and beliefs not in line with evidence-based management of LBP is concerning. It is crucial to develop efficient strategies to enhance knowledge of guidelines among physiotherapists and increase their implementation in clinical practice. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

Review
Identification of Metabolic Factors and Inflammatory Markers Predictive of Outcome after Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(10), 5796; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105796 - 11 May 2023
Viewed by 1372
Abstract
Objective: To identify metabolic factors and inflammatory markers that are predictive of postoperative total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcome. Method: A systematic search of the existing literature was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science and Embase until the 1st of [...] Read more.
Objective: To identify metabolic factors and inflammatory markers that are predictive of postoperative total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcome. Method: A systematic search of the existing literature was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science and Embase until the 1st of August 2022. Studies that evaluated the influence of metabolic or inflammatory markers (I) on postsurgical outcome (O) in end-stage knee osteoarthritis patients awaiting primary TKA (P) were included in this review. Results: In total, 49 studies were included. Risk of bias of the included studies was low for one study, moderate for 10 studies and high for the remaining 38 studies. Conflicting evidence was found for the influence of body mass index, diabetes, cytokine levels and dyslipidaemia on pain, function, satisfaction and quality of life at more than six months after TKA. Conclusions: Several limitations such as not taking into account known confounding factors, the use of many different outcome measures and a widely varying follow-up period made it challenging to draw firm conclusions and clinical implications. Therefore large-scaled longitudinal studies assessing the predictive value of metabolic and inflammatory factors pre-surgery in addition to the already evidenced risk factors with follow-up of one year after TKA are warranted. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop