3.8 Article

Patient-defined outcomes for pain, fatigue, emotional distress, and interference with activities did not differ by age for individuals with musculoskeletal pain

Journal

PAIN REPORTS
Volume 4, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000798

Keywords

Age; Sex; Pain location; Treatment expectations; Success criteria

Categories

Funding

  1. Foundation for Physical Therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction:Age impacts the prevalence and experience of musculoskeletal pain; however, it is unknown whether this factor impacts patient's anticipated outcomes after treatment.Objective:Using the Patient-Centered Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ), the primary purpose was to determine whether there are age-related differences in desired, successful, expected levels, and importance of improvement in pain, fatigue, emotional distress, and interference with daily activities. As a secondary purpose, anatomical location and sex were then included in the model to examine for interaction effects.Methods:A secondary analysis of the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome cross-sectional and longitudinal cohorts was conducted. Included in this analysis were 572 individuals seeking physical therapy for nonsurgical neck, low back, shoulder, and knee pain who completed the PCOQ at the initial evaluation. A three-way analysis of variance examined PCOQ domains by age categories, sex, and anatomical location.Results:Interaction effects were not observed for any of the domains of interest (P > 0.01). Significant main effects were also not observed for age, sex, and anatomical location (P > 0.01).Conclusion:Musculoskeletal pain prevalence may differ across age categories but, in this cohort, neither age, nor sex, nor anatomical location impacted patient-defined outcomes for intensity, fatigue, emotional distress, and interference with daily activities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available