Background: Healthcare practitioner beliefs influence patients’ beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. A validated questionnaire based on modern pain neuroscience assessing Knowledge and Attitudes ofPain (KNAP) was unavailable.Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop and test measurement properties of KNAP.Design: Phase 1; Development of KNAP reflecting modern pain neuroscience and expert opinion. Phase 2; a crosssectional and longitudinal study among Dutch physiotherapy students.Method: In the cross-sectional study (n = 424), internal consistency, structural validity, hypotheses testing, and Rasch analysis were examined. Longitudinal designs were applied to analyse test-retest reliability (n = 156), responsiveness, and interpretability (n = 76).Results: A 30-item KNAP was developed in 4 stages. Test-retest reliability: ICC (2,1) 0.80. Internal consistency: Cronbach’s α 0.80. Smallest Detectable Difference 90%: 4.99 (4.31; 5.75). Structural validity: exploratory factor analysis showed 2 factors. Hypotheses testing: associations with the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists biopsychosocial subscale r = 0.60, with biomedical subscale r = 0.58, with the Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire r = 0.52. Responsiveness: 93% improved on KNAP after studying pain education. MinimalImportant Change: 4.84 (95%CI: 2.77; 6.91).Conclusions: The KNAP has adequate measurement properties. This new questionnaire could be useful to evaluate physiotherapy students’ knowledge and attitudes of modern pain neuroscience that could help to create awareness and evaluate physiotherapy education programs, and ultimately provide better pain management.
Background: In postoperative pain treatment patients are asked to rate their pain experience on a single uni-dimensional pain scale. Such pain scores are also used as indicator to assess the quality of pain treatment. However, patients may differ in how they interpret the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score. Objectives: This study examines how patients assign a number to their currently experienced postoperative pain and which considerations influence this process. Methods: A qualitative approach according to grounded theory was used. Twenty-seven patients were interviewed one day after surgery. Results: Three main themes emerged that influenced the Numeric Rating Scale scores (0–10) that patients actually reported to professionals: score-related factors, intrapersonal factors, and the anticipated consequences of a given pain score. Anticipated consequences were analgesic administration—which could be desired or undesired—and possible judgements by professionals. We also propose a conceptual model for the relationship between factors that influence the pain rating process. Based on patients’ score-related and intrapersonal factors, a preliminary pain score was ‘‘internally’’ set. Before reporting the pain score to the healthcare professional, patients considered the anticipated consequences (i.e., expected judgements by professionals and anticipation of analgesic administration) of current Numeric Rating Scale scores. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the process of how patients translate their current postoperative pain into a numeric rating score. The proposed model may help professionals to understand the factors that influence a given Numeric Rating Scale score and suggest the most appropriate questions for clarification. In this way, patients and professionals may arrive at a shared understanding of the pain score, resulting in a tailored decision regarding the most appropriate treatment of current postoperative pain, particularly the dosing and timing of opioid administration.
Chronic pain rehabilitation programs are aimed at helping patients to increase their functioning despite being in pain, thereby improving their quality of life. However, conversations between patients and practitioners about how the patient could deal with his/her pain and pain-related disabilities in a different way can be interactionally challenging. This study adopts a discursive psychological perspective to explore how pain-related disability is negotiated by patients and practitioners during consultations. The analysis shows that pain-related disability is treated by both patients and practitioners as negotiable rather than a fixed reality. Moreover, it shows that patients’ and practitioners’ negotiations of disability are subject to issues of agency, accountability, and blame, and it provides insight into the interactional dilemmas that are at stake, both for patients and practitioners. Revalidatieprogramma’s voor patiënten met chronische pijn zijn gericht op het verbeteren van het functioneren ondanks de pijn, waardoor kwaliteit van leven wordt bevorderd. Conversaties tussen patiënten en behandelaars over de manier waarop de patiënt kan omgaan met de pijn en gerelateerde beperkingen kunnen interactionele uitdagingen met zich meebrengen. Dit hoofdstuk verkent vanuit discursief-psychologisch perspectief hoe beperkingen worden onderhandeld door patiënten en behandelaars in consulten. De analyse toont aan dat de beperkingen worden behandeld als onderhandelbaar in plaats van als een onveranderbare werkelijkheid. Bovendien toont de analyse dat in deze onderhandelingen bepaalde issues relevant worden gemaakt, zoals ‘agency’, verantwoordelijkheid en schuld. Inzicht wordt geboden in de interactionele dilemma’s die op het spel staan voor zowel patiënten als behandelaars.
