CHAPTER 1 General Introduction

5

6



General Introduction

Introduction This thesis addresses human illness behavior in patients with musculoskeletal conditions. One definition of illness behavior is “the manner in which individuals monitor the structure and functions of their own bodies, interpret symptoms, take remedial action, and make use of health care facilities” 1. Many musculoskeletal symptoms are never associated with a specific pathophysiological process. In other words, many symptoms (e.g. backache) remain nonspecific or medically unexplained. A review of how human illness behavior has varied across time and cultures with respect to nonspecific symptoms clarifies why illness behavior is a worthwhile topic of study. Humans find nonspecific diagnoses unsatisfying, and apply their intelligence to rationalize medically unexplained symptoms, creating illness constructions with often elaborate anatomical explanations. One example is the diagnosis of “spinal irritation” a popular diagnosis from the 1820s until the 1870s throughout Europe and in Northern America, and was still part of the differential diagnosis of physicians in the United States until the 1920s 2. Pains in any part of the body that could not be explained by the physician, were ascribed to a painful spot in the spine 2. The physician examined the spine to identify a painful location. This was believed to be a spot of irritation that was carried on nerves to the rest of the body 2. An article from the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal (now the New England Journal of Medicine), published in 1906, suggested that a spa treatment at Lago Maggiore in Switzerland could rid a patient of the irritation of the nerves and spine 2, 3. This is an indication of how widely the diagnosis was used and accepted in those days. Doctors in the 19th century also faulted the uterus for causing “hysterical symptoms”, nervousness, and other medically unexplained symptoms in female patients 2. Irritation of the uterus was thought to explain a variety of bodily symptoms 2. Surgeons even operated on those patients because they believed that hysterectomy would alleviate the symptoms 2. Quite remarkable given the substantial risks of surgery at that time. Other physicians supported the theory that an animal was living in the pelvis, which was the cause of nervousness 2. A belief of Ostpreußen, in Germany at that time, was that the uterus was actually a living animal; to be more precise: a frog. 2 When the “Kolke” was upset, it could cause symptoms such as peritonitis 2, 4. In modern times, such an explanation would not be taken seriously by patients, but this was also the time of physicians advocating the drawing of blood or blistering as treatments for a variety of diseases. We would now consider diagnoses such as “spinal irritation” or “upset Kolke” and “hysteria” as inaccurate and the explanation of those diseases as pseudoscientific, but in the 19th century these “diagnoses” were popular 2 . Medically unexplained symptoms are still commonplace 5, but our understanding of them continues to evolve. Attempts to determine why patients with the same disease had different reactions and symptoms resulted in development of the concept of illness behavior in the early 1960s 6. Illness behavior is the way symptoms are perceived, evaluated, and acted on 6 . One patient will have a low threshold to visit a physician, whereas another patient adapts to the symptoms and might not seek attention of a health care provider at all 6. Pilowski viewed psychiatric disorders such as hypochondriasis and conversion as “abnormal” illness behavior 7, 8. In these group of patients, reassurance by a physician will not alleviate symptoms or disability 7, 8. In addition to hypochondriasis, other reactions such as catastrophic thinking or pain anxiety are part of illness behavior. This thesis will try to elucidate the role of these factors in patients with conditions of the hand and upper extremity. 7

Chapter 1



Chapter 1

The influence of psychological factors in orthopaedic surgery The traditional separation of mind and body is often blamed on Descartes, but seems to be the default setting of the normal human mind. Because we can imagine our thoughts as separate from our physical self, we can imagine separating from our body and living on after its demise. Because humans seem to default to this mind-body dichotomy, both patients and health providers expect all perceive bodily dysfunctions to be reducible to a specific pathophysiology, and we tend to underestimate the affect of mood and coping strategies (interpretation of symptoms and behavior in response to them) in the human illness experience. Even though the attitude has shifted and some clinicians and patients now realize that mind and body are connected - a concept known as the biopsychological paradigm - it is still not commonplace to use this approach. Psychological distress has a substantial effect on general health 9. Among patients visiting a general health practitioner, it has been estimated that over 30% might qualify for diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorders 9. Women have more anxiety and depression than men and also have more intense symptoms 10. In addition, women have more bodily symptoms than men and higher levels of somatization 10. Depression is prevalent after orthopaedic trauma; the study of Crichlow and colleagues showed that 45% of the patients had depressive symptoms 3 to 12 months after a trauma; and depression correlated with disability 11. Another study showed that almost 20% of patients are affected by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after a musculoskeletal trauma, and that PTSD, just like depression, correlates with disability 12, 13. Moreover, even 7 years after a traumatic injury, patients with a history of traumatic injury had higher levels of chronic pain compared to the general population, and both depression and self-efficacy to return to their work were among the predictors for chronic pain 14. In patients who suffered a forearm laceration, the prevalence of psychological distress (as measured by the Impact of Events Scale) was 34% 15, and 39% of patients with upper extremity nerve injuries and compression had depression 16. In patients with hand injuries, PTSD and depression are present in about one third of individuals 13. The influence of psychological factors is manifest in patients with back pain. Catastrophic thinking, which is a misinterpretation of nociception, correlates with pain and mental health as measured with the SF-36 Mental Component Summary. Disability was affected by control over pain and self-efficacy17. In addition, psychosocial factors were important in the transition of acute back pain to chronic back pain 18, 19. Patient activity level is another important variable; patients who were more active had better recovery after spine surgery 20. Non Specific Arm Pain is associated with disproportionate pain intensity and disability and correlates with pain anxiety, heightened illness concern, and catastrophic thinking 21-23. Even in conditions with discrete objectively verifiable pathology, such as lateral epicondylitis, catastrophic thinking alone explains 60% of the variation in disability 24. In patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, depression and catastrophic thinking are the most important predictors of pain 25. After minor hand surgery, depression is the most important predictor of pain intensity and magnitude of disability 26. Effective coping strategies such as pain self-efficacy have a strong correlation with symptoms and disability 26. Depression has a similar correlation with disability in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, Quervain tenosynovitis, lateral elbow pain, trigger finger and distal radius fracture 27. Depression also correlates with grip strength, a measure which is frequently used in the practice of a hand surgeon to evaluate function of the hand 28. 8



General Introduction

Depression and coping are considered direct psychological factors, pain is an indirect measure. Pain is important predictor of disability. In patients with a fracture of the elbow, 36% of the variation in the disability questionnaire could be explained by pain and a model of pain with motion accounted for 45% of the variation 29. Measuring disability, general health and psychological factors In trauma, spinal disorders, and hand surgery, there is an increasing body of literature showing the importance of psychological factors in outcomes, general health and disability, and there are many questionnaires used to assess psychological factors and disability. A questionnaire which is often used to assess disability of the upper extremity is the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) 30. The DASH questionnaire consists of 30 questions which are answered on a 5 point Likert scale. The total score is calculated and scores range between 0 (no disability) and 100 (highest disability) 30. There is also a validated shortened version of the DASH, the QuickDASH, which contains 11 questions of the original questionnaire 30, 31. The scoring is the same in both versions 30, 31. The SF-36 is the most commonly used questionnaire to measure general health in studies and has two summary scores, the Mental Component Summary (mental health status) and Physical Component Summary (physical status) 32. The score is calculated so that the standardized mean is 50, with a standard deviation of 10 32. When a physician would like to measure catastrophic thinking, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, developed by Sullivan, can be utilized 33. This questionnaire has 3 subscales; rumination, magnification and helplessness; each of those is a separate construct of catastrophizing 33. Catastrophic thinking is correlated with depression 34, but the PCS is developed to measure a separate construct. There are 13 questions in total, where a higher score indicates more catastrophic thinking 33 . Another important aspect is coping with pain. The pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) has been developed to measure how confident patients are to perform daily activities despite their pain 35. This questionnaire was validated in a sample of chronic pain patients 35, but has been used in upper extremity research as well 26. Depression is common in the general population 9, and there are many questionnaires which can be utilized to measure symptoms of depression. Two of those questionnaires are the Center of Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) 36 and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) 37. The CES-D consists of 20 questions and a higher score corresponds to more depressive symptoms 36. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) 37 or its abbreviated form PHQ-2 38, 39 consist of 9 or 2 questions; higher scores represent more depressive symptoms 37-39. Hypochondriasis is frequently encountered in patients with medically unexplained symptoms: the study of Speckens and colleagues reported a percentage of 19% in a group of these patients 40. The Whiteley Index is a questionnaire developed to measure heightened illness concern, and a higher score on this scale means that the patient has an increased illness concern 41-43. Another study showed that 19.8 percent of patients visiting a medical outpatient clinic satisfied the criteria for health anxiety 44. The Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI), or its short form SHAI-18, can be used to measure this 45. Pain anxiety is another reaction which can be measured with the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Score (PASS) 46. There is a version with 40 questions and the shortened form PASS-20, with 20 questions 46, 47. The questionnaire obtains information concerning pain anxiety through four dimensions: fear of pain, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and escape/avoidance. The higher the score on this measure, the more symptoms of pain anxiety the patient has 46, 47. 9

Chapter 1



Chapter 1

Focus of this thesis There is evidence that psychological factors are important in orthopaedic conditions 24-26. This thesis will try to determine if psychological factors are associated with patient language, informed shared decision making, distal radius fractures, finger injuries, fractures of both bones of the forearm, completion of a questionnaire and return of questionnaires by mail. Another concern is that questionnaires that measure these factors can be too burdensome for routine use, so this thesis will also evaluate the use of shorter questionnaires 24. An outline of the chapters in this thesis is given below. Outline of Chapters Part II: Impairment versus disability after a fracture of the distal radius Fractures of the distal radius are a common cause of disability and pain 48, 49. Function improves over time: the study of MacDermid and colleagues showed that 6 months after a distal radius fracture, 63% of the patients had minimal or no pain, which improved to 79% after a year 49. Warwick and colleagues found that 85% of patients had satisfactory results 10 years after a distal radius fracture 50. Questionnaires are useful to assess disability and this can be measured with SF-36, Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) and DASH 51. Results after this fracture are usually good, but not every patient will recover completely and research has focused on predictors of disability 52. Measures of impairment such as range of motion and grip strength don’t correlate with levels of pain and disability as well as one might expect 53. Karnezis and Fragkiadakis found that grip strength was correlated with disability (PRWE), but flexion and forearm rotation were not 54. Another study found that functional measures only contribute to 25% of the variation in the PRWE (53). A model comprised of workers compensation, education and prereductional radial shortening could also explain 25% of the variation 53. One year after a distal radius fracture, age and income were predictors of disability as measured with the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ), not radiologic outcomes or fracture type 52. Souer and colleagues found that 65% of the variation in disability as measured with the DASH (Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand) was predicted by pain; forearm motion only predicted 6% 55. This thesis will show that there is a divide between impairment or pathophysiology and symptoms or disability, which is largely explained by psychological factors. Distal radius fracture is one paradigm for this and this will be illustrated in Part II of this thesis. Grip strength might seem to be an objective measure of physical impairment, but there is a voluntary component. Chapter 2 tests the hypothesis that psychological factors correlate with grip strength in patients recovering from a conservatively treated fracture of the distal radius. In Chapter 3 an overview of literature is presented on factors which are important in recovery after a fracture of the distal radius. Chapter 4 investigates whether motion or psychological factors are most important in the variation of the individual questions in the DASH questionnaire. The hypothesis of Chapter 4 is that motion is the most important predictor of task-specific disability after a fracture of the distal radius.

10



General Introduction

Part III: Finger injuries and the influence of psychological factors Patient specific factors are important considerations for predicting whether and when a patient will return to work after a finger injury 56. Higher levels of psychological distress, as measured with the Impact of Events Scale, compromised patients’ returns to work after general trauma 57. The study of Watson and colleagues showed that hand surgeons are influenced by motivation and reported pain by the patient to determine if patients are ready to go back to work, in addition to factors such as radiographic union and job demand 58. Psychological factors not only affect a patient’s re-entry in the workforce, but also work performance; when patients have higher depression and anxiety their work performance is weaker 59 and they have more risk of on the job injury 60. In patients with finger, thumb and hand replants, there was a negative correlation between general disability (SF-36) and depression, and after 39 months, the average DASH score was 16 61. A recent study found that the DASH score after phalanx fractures was between 5.8 and 11.7 18 months after operative treatment 62. Van Oosterom and colleagues found that there was a clear distinction between impairment and disability in patients with phalanx fractures 63 . Previous studies indicate that there is a role for psychological factors in finger injuries, and the aim of Part III was to study the influence of psychosocial factors in patients with finger injuries. In Chapter 5, the influence of job satisfaction, burnout, pain or psychological factors on disability is investigated in patients with a finger injury. Our hypothesis is that job satisfaction and burnout are the most important predictors of disability after finger injuries. Chapter 6 concentrates on the most important predictors of disability, time off work and motion1 month after a fingertip injury. In Chapter 6 we test the hypothesis that pain selfefficacy and symptoms of depression are the strongest predictors of disability after fingertip injuries. Part IV: The influence of psychological factors in encounters with hand surgeons The words used by health care providers can influence outcomes 64. For instance “pain” is a much more negative word than “ache” or “discomfort” 64. Vranceanu and colleagues advocate that doctors should use positive wording in order to reinforce positive coping strategies 64. Patients in more psychological distress use words and phrases that communicate their distress to the physician 65. However, most of the cues are missed by the physician 66, so there is room for improvement. The goal of Part IV is to investigate the encounter between the surgeon and the patient. Both the interaction of the surgeon with the patient and the words used by the patient are assessed. In Chapter 7 an analysis is given concerning the specific language used by the patient and its influences on outcome measures such as pain and disability. Our hypothesis is that patient language is associated with symptoms, disability and psychological factors. Chapter 8 lists the most frequently used phrases and feelings by the patients in a phrases and feelings questionnaire and assesses the influence of those on disability. The hypothesis of Chapter 8 is that phrases and feelings correlate with arm-specific disability. Not only the words of the health care provider are important, but also the method of encounter is also influential. For decades the paternalistic approach was common, where the doctor decided what would be best for the patient 67. This method yields inferior results when compared to patient-centered, or informed, shared decision approach 68. For this informed shared decision making, input of both surgeon and patient are necessary 69. Especially in the 11

Chapter 1



Chapter 1

field of surgery, the risks and benefits should be thoroughly discussed, which is what makes shared decision making important 70. Higher levels of informed shared decision making might improve the satisfaction of the patient. But patient factors have been shown to influence satisfaction: in patients visiting an outpatient clinic, depression and pain were associated with less satisfaction 71. The purpose of Chapter 9 is to measure the amount of informed shared decision making in an orthopaedic practice, and also to study the influence of informed shared decision making and psychological factors on disability and patient satisfaction. Our hypothesis is that informed shared decision making is a predictor of patient satisfaction. Part V: Questionnaires to measure disability and psychological factors There are many different questionnaires available to measure separate psychological constructs. Some questionnaires have shorter versions, such as the PHQ-2 38, 39 or the PASS20 46, 47, which significantly reduce the time burden for the patients. Pain catastrophizing 26, 33 and health anxiety 23, 45 are important factors in hand and upper extremity conditions, but both questionnaires consist of numerous questions. The general goal of Part V is to study psychological questionnaires which are used in the field of hand surgery. Chapter 10 describes the creation of two abbreviated versions of a questionnaire to measure health anxiety (SHAI) and catastrophic thinking (PCS). The hypothesis of Chapter 10 is that an abbreviated version of the PCS and SHAI has a high correlation with the original questionnaires. Chapter 11 illustrates the validation of the PCS-4 and SHAI-5 questionnaires. Our hypothesis is that the shortened PCS and SHAI can be used to measure pain catastrophizing and health anxiety. The method of administration is influential in how to interpret scores of questionnaire. There are several ways to administer a questionnaire: on pen and paper, a web-based approach, through the telephone, a telephone assisted web-based approach, and by means of a touch screen 72, 73. A North-American study found no differences in questionnaire score when webbased, touch screen and pen and paper administration were compared 73. Other studies found that telephone scores are higher when compared to pen and paper questionnaire administration 74-77 . Chapter 12 compares scores of questionnaires in different modes of administration: web-based form (as administered with a laptop) compared to pen and paper questionnaires. Our hypothesis is that different administration methods yield equal questionnaire outcomes. Chapter 13 tests the difference in scores when administered over the phone versus on pen and paper. In Chapter 13 we test the hypothesis that questionnaires completed over the phone have the same outcomes as pen and paper administration. Part VI: Factors influencing return to follow-up or mailing response A critical factor in many clinical studies is the follow-up process. Different studies have demonstrated that there are differences in follow-up rate between patients who complete surveys over the phone 76, 78 and in mailing-in surveys 79, 80. A lower percentage of follow-up will decrease the quality of the study, but missing data is inevitable in clinical research 81, 82. The aim of Part VI is to find factors which predict loss of follow-up and missing data. In Chapter 14, an analysis is given concerning the predictors of nonattendance at a followup appointment after a conservatively treated distal radius fracture. Our hypothesis was that patients that do not follow-up are the same as those that do show for a scheduled follow-up. Failing to return a mailing with questionnaires is frequently encountered in research and the 12



General Introduction

purpose of Chapter 15 is to find determinants of returning a postal mailing follow-up. Chapter 15 tests the hypothesis that patients that return a mailing are different from those that do not return a mailing. Questionnaires become invalid if a certain amount of questions are missing; the DASH becomes invalid if three or more questions are missing, while the QuickDASH is invalid when more than 1 question is missing 30, 31. Chapter 16 compares differences in patients that completed the DASH questionnaire and those that did not. Our hypothesis is that there are differences in demographics, depression and catastrophic thinking between patients that complete the DASH questionnaire and those that do not. Part VII: The importance of psychological factors in the long term outcomes Previous studies have elucidated a correlation between disability and pain in the elbow 29. The same was found in patients suffering from a fracture of both radius and ulna 83, but another study found a correlation with function and grip strength 84. The objective of Part VII was to explore which variables determine disability in patients with a fracture of both bones of the forearm with a minimum follow-up of 10 years The previous chapters investigated the influence of psychological factors on acute illness, Chapter 17 investigates psychological factors as determinants of disability for patients that experienced upper extremity disease long before the study. The hypothesis of Chapter 17 is that pain and psychological factors are the most important predictors of disability in the long-term followup after a both bones fracture. Summary of study questions for each of the individual chapters: Part II: Impairment versus disability after a fracture of the distal radius Chapter 2: Determinants of Grip Strength in healthy Subjects compared to that in Patients Recovering from a Distal Radius Fracture General aim: To compare the influence of psychological factors on grip strength in patients recovering from a distal radius fracture to healthy subjects. Specific question: Are psychological factors predictors of grip strength in patients recovering from a fracture of the distal radius? Chapter 3: Recovery after Fracture of the Distal Radius General aim: To give an overview of the literature on recovery after a distal radius fracture. Specific question: What does evidence suggest as the best regimen a health care provider can give to a patient recovering from a distal radius fracture? Chapter 4: Correlation between Perceived Disability and Objective Physical Impairment after Distal Radius Fractures General aim: The aim of this chapter is to determine if psychological factors or motion are the most important predictors for disability with specific tasks after a fracture of the distal radius. Specific question: Are impaired wrist motion or psychological factors the most important predictor for specific tasks on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire?

13

Chapter 1



Chapter 1 

Part III: Finger injuries and the influence of psychological factors Chapter 5: The Influence of Job Satisfaction, Burnout, Pain and Workers’ Compensation Status on Disability after Finger Injuries General aim: To evaluate the separate effects of job satisfaction, burnout, and secondary gain on arm-specific disability after a finger injury in a cohort of working patients. Specific question: What are the most important predictors of disability after a finger injury? Chapter 6: Determinants of Disability one Month after Fingertip Injuries General aim: The aim of this chapter is to find predictors of disability and absence from work one month after an injury of the fingertip. Specific question: Is there a correlation between psychological factors and disability after fingertip injuries? Part IV: The influence of psychological factors in encounters with hand surgeons Chapter 7: Correspondence of Patient Word Choice with Psychologic Factors in Patients with Upper Extremity Illness General aim: To assess if specific phrases used by patients can inform health care providers in diseases of the upper extremity. Specific question: Are specific phrases of patients associated with symptoms, disability, and psychological factors in patients with hand and arm disorders? Chapter 8: The Correlation of Phrases and Feelings about Patient’s Upper Extremity Illness with Disability General aim: To determine if phrases and feelings of patients have a role in mediating variation in disability. Specific question: Is there a correlation between disability and the phrases questionnaire? Chapter 9: Informed Shared Decision Making and Patient Satisfaction General aim: To determine the amount of informed shared decision making in an orthopaedic practice, and the influence of informed shared decision making on disability and satisfaction. Specific question: Is informed shared decision making a predictor of patient satisfaction? Part V: Questionnaires to measure disability and psychological factors Chapter 10: Creation of the Abbreviated Measures of the PCS and SHAI: the PCS-4 and SHAI-5 General aim: To create shorter versions of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Health Anxiety Inventory which make evaluation of health anxiety and catastrophic thinking less time consuming. Specific question: Is there a correlation between the short and long versions of the PCS and SHAI?

14



General Introduction

Chapter 11: Abbreviated Psychological Questionnaires are valid in Patients with Hand Conditions General aim: To validate the PCS-4 and SHAI-5 questionnaires in patients with hand and upper extremity conditions. Specific question: Is there a difference in the use of the long and short versions of the PCS-4 and SHAI-5 for prediction of disability? Chapter 12: The Comparison of Paper- and Web-based Questionnaires in Patients with Hand and Upper Extremity Illness General aim: The aim of this chapter is to determine if the scores are different when commonly used questionnaires to detect disability, pain and psychological factors, are administered in both paper and web-based format. Specific question: Is there a different score of the PHQ-2, QuickDASH, PCS, SHAI and pain when questionnaires are administered in paper versus in web-format? Chapter 13: Validation of Phone Administration of Short-Form Disability and Psychology Questionnaires General aim: The aim of this chapter was to examine if there are differences in scores of questionnaires frequently used in arm and upper extremity illness when different administration modes are compared. . Specific question: Is there a difference in score between telephone and paper administration of the PCS-4, SHAI-5, QuickDASH, ordinal pain scale and PHQ-2? Part VI: Factors influencing return to follow-up or mailing response Chapter 14: Predictors of Return after Cast Removal in Patients with a Nonoperatively Treated Distal Radius Fracture General aim: To establish whether patient demographics or psychological factors have a role in not returning to the clinic when a follow-up visit was scheduled after a distal radius fracture. Specific question: Which variables influence return for a scheduled visit after cast removal? Chapter 15: Factors Associated with Survey Response in a Hand Surgery Clinic General aim: To find predictors of non-return of a mailing questionnaire. Specific question: What are the demographics, illness, and psychological factors associated with not completing a mail survey? Chapter 16: Factors Associated with Incomplete DASH Questionnaires General aim: To assess if there are differences in patients that complete all questions in a questionnaire and those that do not. Specific question: What are the predictors for not completing the DASH questionnaire? Part VII: The importance of psychological factors in the long term outcomes Chapter 17: Long Term Outcomes after Fractures of Both Bones of the Forearm General aim: To determine what the levels of function and disability are in a cohort of patients that suffered from a fracture of both bones of the forearm 20 years ago. Specific question: Are psychological factors predictors of disability after a follow-up of a minimum of 10 years after a fracture of both bones of the forearm? 15

Chapter 1



Chapter 1

Overall aim of this thesis This PhD thesis studies the influence of psychological factors in illness behavior in different hand and upper extremity conditions encountered in the practice of a hand surgeon. The importance of the language used by the patient and the amount of shared decision making in an orthopaedic practice is investigated. This thesis focuses also on questionnaires which are administered to measure these psychological factors and to create and validate shorter questionnaires. The overall aim is to raise awareness of 1) the importance of psychological factors as part of illness behavior in both traumatic and nontraumatic conditions of the upper extremity; 2) the importance of informed shared decision making and increase the amount of informed shared decision making in their practice; 3) word choice of the patients as an expression of emotional distress; 4) which questionnaires to use and to interpret results based on the mode of administration; 5) factors important in determining nonresponse to questionnaires or clinical follow-up, and 6) psychology evaluation to achieve better care for the patients when patients express psychological distress.

16



General Introduction

References 1. Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. 2009, Elsevier, downloaded from; http://medical-dictionary. thefreedictionary.com/illness+behavior, assessed on October 26, 2012. 2. Shorter E. From Paralysis to Fatigue: A history of Psychosomatic Illness in the Modern Era. The Free Press, New York 1993. 3. Letters from Our Special Paris Correspondent. BMSJ. 1906 October 11;155:423-5. 4. Berg A. Der Krankheitskomplex der Kolik- und Gebärmutterleiden in Volksmedizin und Medizingeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Volsksmedizin in Ostpreussen. Berlin. 1935:36-7. 5. Barsky AJ, Borus JF. Functional somatic syndromes. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Jun 1;130(11):910-21. 6. Mechanic D, Volkart E. Stress, illness behavior and the sick role. Am Sociol Rev. 1961;26:51-8. 7. Pilowsky I. Abnormal illness behaviour. Br J Med Psychol 1969;42:347. 8. Pilowsky I, Spence N. Patterns of illness behaviour in patients with intractable pain. Psychosom Res. 1975;19:279-87. 9. Brenes GA. Anxiety, depression, and quality of life in primary care patients. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;9(6):437-43. 10. Barsky AJ, Peekna HM, Borus JF. Somatic symptom reporting in women and men. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Apr;16(4):266-75. 11. Crichlow RJ, Andres PL, Morrison SM, Haley SM, Vrahas MS. Depression in orthopaedic trauma patients. Prevalence and severity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Sep;88(9):1927-33. 12. Ponsford J, Hill B, Karamitsios M, Bahar-Fuchs A. Factors influencing outcome after orthopedic trauma. J Trauma. 2008 Apr;64(4):1001-9. 13. Williams AE, Newman JT, Ozer K, Juarros A, Morgan SJ, Smith WR. Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression negatively impact general health status after hand injury. J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Mar;34(3):515-22. 14. Castillo RC, MacKenzie EJ, Wegener ST, Bosse MJ. Prevalence of chronic pain seven years following limb threatening lower extremity trauma. Pain. 2006 Oct;124(3):321-9. 15. Jaquet JB, Kalmijn S, Kuypers PD, Hofman A, Passchier J, Hovius SE. Early psychological stress after forearm nerve injuries: a predictor for long-term functional outcome and return to productivity. Ann Plast Surg. 2002 Jul;49(1):82-90. 16. Bailey R, Kaskutas V, Fox I, Baum CM, Mackinnon SE. Effect of upper extremity nerve damage on activity participation, pain, depression, and quality of life. J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Nov;34(9):1682-8. 17. Abbott AD, Tyni-Lenne R, Hedlund R. The influence of psychological factors on pre-operative levels of pain intensity, disability and health-related quality of life in lumbar spinal fusion surgery patients. Physiotherapy. 2010 Sep;96(3):213-21. 18. Carragee EJ, Barcohana B, Alamin T, van den Haak E. Prospective controlled study of the development of lower back pain in previously asymptomatic subjects undergoing experimental discography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 May 15;29(10):1112-7. 19. Pincus T, Burton AK, Vogel S, Field AP. A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Mar 1;27(5):E109-20. 20. Skolasky RL, Mackenzie EJ, Wegener ST, Riley LH, 3rd. Patient activation and functional recovery in persons undergoing spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Sep 21;93(18):1665-71. 21. Ring D, Guss D, Malhotra L, Jupiter JB. Idiopathic arm pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Jul;86-A(7):1387-91. 22. Ring D, Kadzielski J, Malhotra L, Lee SG, Jupiter JB. Psychological factors associated with idiopathic arm pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Feb;87(2):374-80. 23. Vranceanu AM, Safren SA, Cowan J, Ring DC. Health concerns and somatic symptoms explain perceived disability and idiopathic hand and arm pain in an orthopedics surgical practice: a path-analysis model. Psychosomatics. 2010 Jul;51(4):330-7.

17

Chapter 1



Chapter 1

24. Lindenhovius A, Henket M, Gilligan BP, Lozano-Calderon S, Jupiter JB, Ring D. Injection of dexamethasone versus placebo for lateral elbow pain: a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Jul-Aug;33(6):909-19. 25. Nunez F, Vranceanu AM, Ring D. Determinants of pain in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Dec;468(12):3328-32. 26. Vranceanu AM, Jupiter JB, Mudgal CS, Ring D. Predictors of pain intensity and disability after minor hand surgery. J Hand Surg Am. 2010 Jun;35(6):956-60. 27. Ring D, Kadzielski J, Fabian L, Zurakowski D, Malhotra LR, Jupiter JB. Self-reported upper extremity health status correlates with depression. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Sep;88(9):1983-8. 28. Watson J, Ring D. Influence of psychological factors on grip strength. J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Dec;33(10):1791-5. 29. Doornberg JN, Ring D, Fabian LM, Malhotra L, Zurakowski D, Jupiter JB. Pain dominates measurements of elbow function and health status. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Aug;87(8):1725-31. 30. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996 Jun;29(6):602-8. 31. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 May;87(5):1038-46. 32. Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83. 33. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivick J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: development and validation. Psychological Assessment. 1995;7(4):525-32. 34. Sullivan MJ, D’Eon JL. Relation between catastrophizing and depression in chronic pain patients. J Abnorm Psychol. 1990 Aug;99(3):260-3. 35. Nicholas MK. The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: Taking pain into account. Eur J Pain. 2007 Feb;11(2):153-63. 36. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977(I):385–401. 37. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13. 38. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284-92. 39. Lowe B, Kroenke K, Grafe K. Detecting and monitoring depression with a two-item questionnaire (PHQ-2). J Psychosom Res. 2005 Feb;58(2):163-71. 40. Speckens AE, Van Hemert AM, Spinhoven P, Bolk JH. The diagnostic and prognostic significance of the Whitely Index, the Illness Attitude Scales and the Somatosensory Amplification Scale. Psychol Med. 1996 Sep;26(5):1085-90. 41. Barsky AJ, Wyshak G, Klerman GL. Hypochondriasis. An evaluation of the DSM-III criteria in medical outpatients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1986 May;43(5):493-500. 42. Pilowsky I. Dimensions of hypochondriasis. Br J Psychiatry 1967;113:89-93. 43. Speckens AE, Spinhoven P, Sloekers PP, Bolk JH, van Hemert AM. A validation study of the Whitely Index, the Illness Attitude Scales, and the Somatosensory Amplification Scale in general medical and general practice patients. J Psychosom Res. 1996 Jan;40(1):95-104. 44. Tyrer P, Cooper S, Crawford M, Dupont S, Green J, Murphy D, et al. Prevalence of health anxiety problems in medical clinics. J Psychosom Res. 2011 Dec;71(6):392-4. 45. Salkovskis PM, Rimes KA, Warwick HM, Clark DM. The Health Anxiety Inventory: development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis. Psychol Med. 2002 Jul;32(5):843-53.

18



General Introduction

46. McCracken LM, Zayfert C, Gross RT. The Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale: development and validation of a scale to measure fear of pain. Pain. 1992 Jul;50(1):67-73. 47. McCracken LM, Dhingra L. A short version of the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (PASS-20): preliminary development and validity. Pain Res Manag. 2002 Spring;7(1):45-50. 48. Diaz-Garcia RJ, Oda T, Shauver MJ, Chung KC. A systematic review of outcomes and complications of treating unstable distal radius fractures in the elderly. J Hand Surg Am. 2011 May;36(5):824-35 e2. 49. MacDermid JC, Roth JH, Richards RS. Pain and disability reported in the year following a distal radius fracture: a cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003 Oct 31;4:24. 50. Warwick D, Field J, Prothero D, Gibson A, Bannister GC. Function ten years after Colles’ fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Oct(295):270-4. 51. MacDermid JC, Richards RS, Donner A, Bellamy N, Roth JH. Responsiveness of the short form36, disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire, patient-rated wrist evaluation, and physical impairment measurements in evaluating recovery after a distal radius fracture. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2000 Mar;25(2):330-40. 52. Chung KC, Kotsis SV, Kim HM. Predictors of functional outcomes after surgical treatment of distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2007 Jan;32(1):76-83. 53. MacDermid JC, Donner A, Richards RS, Roth JH. Patient versus injury factors as predictors of pain and disability six months after a distal radius fracture. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Sep;55(9):849-54. 54. Karnezis IA, Fragkiadakis EG. Association between objective clinical variables and patient-rated disability of the wrist. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2002;84-B:967 - 70. 55. Souer JS, Lozano-Calderon SA, Ring D. Predictors of wrist function and health status after operative treatment of fractures of the distal radius. J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Feb;33(2):157-63. 56. Chin KR, Lonner JH, Jupiter BS, Jupiter JB. The surgeon as a hand patient: the clinical and psychological impact of hand and wrist fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 1999 Jan;24(1):59-63. 57. Michaels AJ, Michaels CE, Moon CH, Zimmerman MA, Peterson C, Rodriguez JL. Psychosocial factors limit outcomes after trauma. J Trauma. 1998 Apr;44(4):644-8. 58. Watson J, Shin R, Zurakowski D, Ring D. A survey regarding physician recommendations regarding return to work. J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Jul-Aug;34(6):1111-8 e2. 59. Haslam C, Atkinson S, Brown SS, Haslam RA. Anxiety and depression in the workplace: effects on the individual and organisation (a focus group investigation). J Affect Disord. 2005 Oct;88(2):209-15. 60. Kim HC, Park SG, Min KB, Yoon KJ. Depressive symptoms and self-reported occupational injury in small and medium-sized companies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009 May;82(6):715-21. 61. Gokce A, Bekler H, Karacaoglu E, Servet E, Gokay NS. Anxiety and trauma perception and quality of life in patients who have undergone replantation. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2011 Oct;27(8):475-80. 62. Paulus C, Suero EM, Schutz L, Josten C, Citak M. [Outpatient treatment of metacarpal and phalangeal fractures leads to similar outcomes compared to inpatient treatment]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2011 Oct;149(5):550-3. 63. van Oosterom FJ, Ettema AM, Mulder PG, Hovius SE. Impairment and disability after severe hand injuries with multiple phalangeal fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2007 Jan;32(1):91-5. 64. Vranceanu AM, Elbon M, Ring D. The Emotive Impact of Orthopedic Words. J Hand Ther. 2011 Jan 28;24(2):112-6. 65. Del Piccolo L, Saltini A, Zimmermann C, Dunn G. Differences in verbal behaviours of patients with and without emotional distress during primary care consultations. Psychol Med. 2000 May;30(3):629-43. 66. Zimmermann C, Del Piccolo L, Finset A. Cues and concerns by patients in medical consultations: a literature review. Psychol Bull. 2007 May;133(3):438-63. 67. Bryant D, Bednarski E, Gafni A. Incorporating patient preferences into orthopaedic practice: should the orthopaedic encounter change? Injury. 2006 Apr;37(4):328-34.

19

Chapter 1



Chapter 1

68. Vranceanu AM, Cooper C, Ring D. Integrating patient values into evidence-based practice: effective communication for shared decision-making. Hand Clin. 2009 Feb;25(1):83-96, vii. 69. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997 Mar;44(5):681-92. 70. Weinstein JN, Clay K, Morgan TS. Informed patient choice: patient-centered valuing of surgical risks and benefits. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 May-Jun;26(3):726-30. 71. Bair MJ, Kroenke K, Sutherland JM, McCoy KD, Harris H, McHorney CA. Effects of depression and pain severity on satisfaction in medical outpatients: analysis of the Medical Outcomes Study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007;44(2):143-52. 72. Bellamy N, Wilson C, Hendrikz J, Whitehouse SL, Patel B, Dennison S, et al. Osteoarthritis Index delivered by mobile phone (m-WOMAC) is valid, reliable, and responsive. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;64(2):182-90. 73. Shervin N, Dorrwachter J, Bragdon CR, Shervin D, Zurakowski D, Malchau H. Comparison of paper and computer-based questionnaire modes for measuring health outcomes in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Feb 2;93(3):285-93. 74. Feveile H, Olsen O, Hogh A. A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:27. 75. Lungenhausen M, Lange S, Maier C, Schaub C, Trampisch HJ, Endres HG. Randomised controlled comparison of the Health Survey Short Form (SF-12) and the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) in telephone interviews versus self-administered questionnaires. Are the results equivalent? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:50. 76. McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE, Jr. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey. Med Care. 1994 Jun;32(6):551-67. 77. Perkins JJ, Sanson-Fisher RW. An examination of self- and telephone-administered modes of administration for the Australian SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):969-73. 78. Lall R, Mistry D, Bridle C, Lamb SE. Telephone interviews can be used to collect follow-up data subsequent to no response to postal questionnaires in clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Jan;65(1):90-9. 79. Dallosso HM, Matthews RJ, McGrother CW, Clarke M, Perry SI, Shaw C, et al. An investigation into nonresponse bias in a postal survey on urinary symptoms. BJU Int. 2003 May;91(7):631-6. 80. Macera CA, Jackson KL, Davis DR, Kronenfeld JJ, Blair SN. Patterns of non-response to a mail survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(12):1427-30. 81. Haukoos JS, Newgard CD. Advanced statistics: missing data in clinical research--part 1: an introduction and conceptual framework. Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Jul;14(7):662-8. 82. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393. 83. Droll KP, Perna P, Potter J, Harniman E, Schemitsch EH, McKee MD. Outcomes following plate fixation of fractures of both bones of the forearm in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Dec;89(12):2619-24. 84. Goldfarb CA, Ricci WM, Tull F, Ray D, Borrelli J, Jr. Functional outcome after fracture of both bones of the forearm. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Mar;87(3):374-9.

20