Patient ratings of satisfaction with their postoperative pain treatment tend to be high even in those with substantial pain. Determinants are poorly understood and have not previously been studied in large-scale, international datasets. PAIN OUT, a European Union-funded acute pain registry and research project, collects patient-reported outcome data on postoperative day 1 using the self-reported International Pain Outcome Questionnaire (IPO), and patient, clinical, and treatment characteristics. We investigated correlates of satisfaction and consistency of effects across centres and countries using multilevel regression modelling. Our sample comprised 16,868 patients (median age 55 years; 55% female) from 42 centres in 11 European countries plus Israel, USA, and Malaysia, who underwent a wide range of surgical procedures, for example, joint, limb, and digestive tract surgeries. Median satisfaction was 9 (interquartile range 7-10) on a 0-10 scale. Three IPO items showed strong associations and explained 35% of the variability present in the satisfaction variable: more pain relief received, higher allowed participation in pain treatment decisions, and no desire to have received more pain treatment. Patient factors and additional IPO items reflecting pain experience (eg, worst pain intensity), pain-related impairment, and information on pain treatment added little explanatory value, partially due to covariate correlations. Effects were highly consistent across centres and countries. We conclude that satisfaction with postoperative pain treatment is associated with the patients' actual pain experience, but more strongly with impressions of improvement and appropriateness of care. To the degree they desire, patients should be provided with information and involved in pain treatment decisions.
To explore definitions for multisite pain, and compare associations with risk factors for different patterns of musculoskeletal pain, we analysed cross-sectional data from the Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability (CUPID) study. The study sample comprised 12,410 adults aged 20-59 years from 47 occupational groups in 18 countries. A standardised questionnaire was used to collect information about pain in the past month at each of 10 anatomical sites, and about potential risk factors. Associations with pain outcomes were assessed by Poisson regression, and characterised by prevalence rate ratios (PRRs). Extensive pain, affecting 6-10 anatomical sites, was reported much more frequently than would be expected if the occurrence of pain at each site were independent (674 participants vs 41.9 expected). In comparison with pain involving only 1-3 sites, it showed much stronger associations (relative to no pain) with risk factors such as female sex (PRR 1.6 vs 1.1), older age (PRR 2.6 vs 1.1), somatising tendency (PRR 4.6 vs 1.3), and exposure to multiple physically stressing occupational activities (PRR 5.0 vs 1.4). After adjustment for number of sites with pain, these risk factors showed no additional association with a distribution of pain that was widespread according to the frequently used American College of Rheumatology criteria. Our analysis supports the classification of pain at multiple anatomical sites simply by the number of sites affected, and suggests that extensive pain differs importantly in its associations with risk factors from pain that is limited to only a small number of anatomical sites.
To inform case definition for neck/shoulder pain in epidemiological research, we compared levels of disability, patterns of association, and prognosis for pain that was limited to the neck or shoulders (LNSP) and more generalised musculoskeletal pain that involved the neck or shoulder(s) (GPNS). Baseline data on musculoskeletal pain, disability, and potential correlates were collected by questionnaire from 12,195 workers in 47 occupational groups (mostly office workers, nurses, and manual workers) in 18 countries (response rate = 70%). Continuing pain after a mean interval of 14 months was ascertained through a follow-up questionnaire in 9150 workers from 45 occupational groups. Associations with personal and occupational factors were assessed by Poisson regression and summarised by prevalence rate ratios (PRRs). The 1-month prevalence of GPNS at baseline was much greater than that of LNSP (35.1% vs 5.6%), and it tended to be more troublesome and disabling. Unlike LNSP, the prevalence of GPNS increased with age. Moreover, it showed significantly stronger associations with somatising tendency (PRR 1.6 vs 1.3) and poor mental health (PRR 1.3 vs 1.1); greater variation between the occupational groups studied (prevalence ranging from 0% to 67.6%) that correlated poorly with the variation in LNSP; and was more persistent at follow-up (72.1% vs 61.7%). Our findings highlight important epidemiological distinctions between subcategories of neck/shoulder pain. In future epidemiological research that bases case definitions on symptoms, it would be useful to distinguish pain that is localised to the neck or shoulder from more generalised pain that happens to involve the neck/shoulder region.
Although founded on the basis of the study of pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has actively advocated for improving pain relief and access to pain management in a variety of ways. The Global Year was launched in 2004 and has continued with a different theme each year, and "Pain Awareness Month" is held every September. The Declaration of Montreal (2010) emphasized that access to pain management is a fundamental human right as a result from the IASP-hosted International Pain Summit. The IASP has continued to publish timely statements related to pain and pain management. The work of IASP on the 11th version of the International Classification of Disease has ensured that chronic pain is recognized as a disease in its own right, and the establishment of the Global Alliance of Partners for Pain Advocacy Task Force recognizes the importance of engaging people with lived experience of pain in accomplishing IASP's mission. The Working Group on Global Advocacy now spearheads IASP's global efforts in capacity building to ensure that pain advocacy activities will continue to grow.
Fibromyalgia is a highly heterogeneous condition, but the most common symptoms are widespread pain, fatigue, poor sleep, and low mood. Nonpharmacological interventions are recommended as first-line treatment of fibromyalgia. However which interventions are effective for the different symptoms is not well understood. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions on symptoms and disease-specific quality of life. Seven databases were searched from their inception until June 1, 2020. Randomised controlled trials comparing any nonpharmacological intervention to usual care, waiting list, or placebo in people with fibromyalgia aged >16 years were included without language restriction. Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) was the primary outcome measure. Standardised mean difference and 95% confidence interval were calculated using random effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated using the modified Cochrane tool. Of the 16,251 studies identified, 167 randomised controlled trials (n = 11,012) assessing 22 nonpharmacological interventions were included. Exercise, psychological treatments, multidisciplinary modality, balneotherapy, and massage improved FIQ. Subgroup analysis of different exercise interventions found that all forms of exercise improved pain (effect size [ES] -0.72 to -0.96) and depression (ES -0.35 to -1.22) except for flexibility exercise. Mind-body and strengthening exercises improved fatigue (ES -0.77 to -1.00), whereas aerobic and strengthening exercises improved sleep (ES -0.74 to -1.33). Psychological treatments including cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness improved FIQ, pain, sleep, and depression (ES -0.35 to -0.55) but not fatigue. The findings of this study suggest that nonpharmacological interventions for fibromyalgia should be individualised according to the predominant symptom.
This article summarizes the many initiatives and achievements of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) in pain education worldwide since 1973. These range from major events such as the World Congress on Pain that attracts thousands of attendees to the more intimate and focused Pain Schools and Pain Camps. The article describes how education has been a key focus of IASP since its inception and how IASP has responded to its members' desire for access to the latest knowledge about pain and evidence-based pain treatments. The unique contribution of IASP to the study of pain is reflected in its consistent focus on a biopsychosocial approach to pain, the promotion of interactions between basic scientists and clinicians, as well as multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaborations. Details of these rich offerings can be found on the IASP web site, and this article provides a guide for those seeking to access them.
The burden of pain in low- and middle income countries (LMICs) is high and expected to rise further with their ageing populations. Multidisciplinary pain management approaches based on the biopsychosocial model of pain have been shown to be effective in reducing pain-related distress and disability, but these approaches are still lacking in many LMICs due to various factors, including low levels of awareness about the role of multidisciplinary pain clinics, lack of prioritisation for pain services, and lack of healthcare professionals trained in pain management. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has several educational programs to promote multidisciplinary pain management in LMICs, in the form of education grants, pain fellowships, pain camps and, most recently, the development of a Multidisciplinary Pain Centre Toolkit. This article describes the various educational programs, focusing on Southeast Asia, that demonstrate how targeted educational programs which include skills training, follow-up and mentorship, can translate into the formation of new multidisciplinary pain management services in settings with limited resources.