Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Study protocol

The influence of a cognitive behavioural approach on changing patient expectations for conservative care in shoulder pain treatment: a protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Authors: Heather Myers, Francis Keefe, Steven Z. George, June Kennedy, Ashley Davis Lake, Corina Martinez, Chad Cook

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite similar outcomes for surgery and conservative care, the number of surgeries to treat rotator cuff related shoulder pain has increased. Interventions designed to enhance treatment expectations for conservative care have been shown to improve patient expectations, but no studies have yet explored whether such interventions influence patient decisions to pursue surgery. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to examine the effect of an intervention designed to improve expectations of conservative care on the decision to have surgery.

Methods

We will test the effectiveness of the Patient Engagement, Education, and Restructuring of Cognitions (PEERC) intervention which is intended to change expectations regarding conservative care. The PEERC intervention will be evaluated in a randomized, pragmatic “add-on” trial, to better understand the effect the intervention has on outcomes. Ninety-four (94) participants with rotator cuff related shoulder pain referred for physical therapy will be randomized to receive either impairment-based care or impairment-based care plus PEERC. Both groups will receive impairment-based conservative treatment created by compiling the evidence associated with established, effective interventions. Participants assigned to the impairment-based care plus PEERC condition will also receive the PEERC intervention. This intervention, informed by principles of cognitive behavioral therapy, involves three components: (1) strategies to enhance engagement, (2) education and (3) cognitive restructuring and behavioral activation. Outcomes will be assessed at multiple points between enrolment and six months after discharge. The primary outcome is patient reported decision to have surgery and the secondary outcomes are pain, function, expectations and satisfaction with conservative care.

Discussion

Rotator cuff related shoulder pain is highly prevalent, and because conservative and surgical treatments have similar outcomes, an intervention that changes expectations about conservative care could alter patient reports of their decision to have surgery and ultimately could lead to lower healthcare costs and decreased risk of surgical complications.

Trial registration

This study is registered as NCT03353272 at ClincialTrials.gov.
Literature
1.
Dalton SE. The conservative management of rotator cuff disorders. Br J Rheumatol. 1994;33(7):663–7.
2.
Goldberg BA, Nowinski RJ, Matsen FA. Outcome of nonoperative management of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;382:99–107.CrossRef
3.
Kukkonen J, Joukainen A, Lehtinen J, Mattila KT, Tuominen EKJ, Kauko T, et al. Treatment of non-traumatic rotator cuff tears: A randomised controlled trial with one-year clinical results. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(1):75–81.
4.
Moosmayer S, Lund G, Seljom U, Svege I, Hennig T, Tariq R, et al. Comparison between surgery and physiotherapy in the treatment of small and medium-sized tears of the rotator cuff: A randomised controlled study of 103 patients with one-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(1):83–91.
5.
Iyengar JJ, Samagh SP, Schairer W, Singh G, Valone FH, Feeley BT. Current trends in rotator cuff repair: surgical technique, setting, and cost. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(3):284–8.
6.
Colvin AC, Egorova N, Harrison AK, Moskowitz A, Flatow EL. National trends in rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(3):227–33.CrossRef
7.
Fermont AJM, Wolterbeek N, Wessel RN, Baeyens J-P, de Bie RA. Prognostic factors for successful recovery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic literature review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(3):153–63.
8.
Henn RF, Kang L, Tashjian RZ, Green A. Patients’ preoperative expectations predict the outcome of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(9):1913–9.
9.
O’Malley KJ, Roddey TS, Gartsman GM, Cook KF. Outcome expectancies, functional outcomes, and expectancy fulfillment for patients with shoulder problems. Med Care. 2004;42(2):139–46.
10.
Skatteboe S, Røe C, Fagerland MW, Granan L-P. Expectations of pain and functioning in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):48.CrossRef
11.
Bishop MD, Mintken PE, Bialosky JE, Cleland JA. Patient expectations of benefit from interventions for neck pain and resulting influence on outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(7):457-65.
12.
Cormier S, Lavigne GL, Choinière M, Rainville P. Expectations predict chronic pain treatment outcomes. Pain. 2016;157(2):329–38.
13.
Ellis DJ, Mallozzi SS, Mathews JE, Moss IL, Ouellet JA, Jarzem P, et al. The Relationship between Preoperative Expectations and the Short-Term Postoperative Satisfaction and Functional Outcome in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review. Global Spine J. 2015;5(5):436–52.
14.
Kongsted A, Vach W, Axø M, Bech RN, Hestbaek L. Expectation of recovery from low back pain: a longitudinal cohort study investigating patient characteristics related to expectations and the association between expectations and 3-month outcome. Spine. 2014;39(1):81–90.CrossRef
15.
Riley SP, Bialosky J, Cote MP, Swanson BT, Tafuto V, Sizer PS, et al. Thoracic spinal manipulation for musculoskeletal shoulder pain: Can an instructional set change patient expectation and outcome? Man Ther. 2015;20(3):469–74.CrossRef
16.
Martínez-Cervera FV, Olteanu TE, Gil-Martínez A, Díaz-Pulido B, Ferrer-Peña R. Influence of expectations plus mobilization with movement in patient with lateral epicondylalgia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Exerc Rehabil. 2017;13(1):101–9.CrossRef
17.
Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015;8:350:h2147.
18.
Loudon K, Zwarenstein M, Sullivan FM, Donnan PT, Gágyor I, Hobbelen HJSM, et al. The PRECIS-2 tool has good interrater reliability and modest discriminant validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:113–21.
19.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Strategies for Small-Number-Participant Clinical Research Trials. Small clinical trials: issues and challenges. Evans CH, Ildstad ST, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001.
20.
Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(6):455-63.
21.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):100–7.
22.
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.
23.
Kuhn JE. Exercise in the treatment of rotator cuff impingement: a systematic review and a synthesized evidence-based rehabilitation protocol. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(1):138–60.
24.
Garrison JC, Shanley E, Thigpen C, Hegedus E, Cook C. Between-session changes predict overall perception of improvement but not functional improvement in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome seen for physical therapy: an observational study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011;27(2):137–45.
25.
Stevenson K, Jackson S, Shufflebotham J, Roddy E, Foster NE. Development and delivery of a physiotherapist-led exercise intervention in a randomised controlled trial for subacromial impingement syndrome (the SUPPORT trial). Physiotherapy. 2017;103(4):379–86.
26.
Zywiel MG, Mahomed A, Gandhi R, Perruccio AV, Mahomed NN. Measuring expectations in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(11):3446–56.
27.
Glance LG, Osler TM, Neuman MD. Redesigning surgical decision making for high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1379–81.
28.
Torrens C, Miquel J, Santana F. Do we really allow patient decision-making in rotator cuff surgery? A prospective randomized study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):116.CrossRef
29.
Breckenridge JD, McAuley JH. Shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI). J Physiother. 2011;57(3):197.CrossRef
30.
Roddey TS, Olson SL, Cook KF, Gartsman GM, Hanten W. Comparison of the University of California-Los Angeles Shoulder Scale and the Simple Shoulder Test with the shoulder pain and disability index: single-administration reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 2000;80(8):759–68.
31.
Ekeberg OM, Bautz-Holter E, Tveitå EK, Keller A, Juel NG, Brox JI. Agreement, reliability and validity in 3 shoulder questionnaires in patients with rotator cuff disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:68.CrossRef
32.
Schmitt J, Di Fabio RP. The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(12):2270–6.
33.
Michener LA, Snyder AR, Leggin BG. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain and the effect of surgical status. J Sport Rehabil. 2011;20(1):115–28.
34.
Herr KA, Spratt K, Mobily PR, Richardson G. Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(4):207–19.
35.
Bijur PE, Latimer CT, Gallagher EJ. Validation of a verbally administered numerical rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(4):390–2.
36.
Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, Rodkey WG, Kocher MS, Steadman JR. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(5):890–7.
37.
Williams JW, Holleman DR, Simel DL. Measuring shoulder function with the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. J Rheumatol. 1995;22(4):727–32.
38.
Wickman JR, Lau BC, Scribani MB, Wittstein JR. Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) correlates with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(2):363–9.
39.
Thigpen CA, Shanley E, Momaya AM, Kissenberth MJ, Tolan SJ, Tokish JM, et al. Validity and Responsiveness of the Single Alpha-numeric Evaluation for Shoulder Patients. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(14):3480–5.CrossRef
40.
Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163–70.CrossRef
41.
Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Pozzi GC, et al. Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: which one is the best? Spine. 2008;33(22):2459–63.CrossRef
42.
Watson CJ, Propps M, Ratner J, Zeigler DL, Horton P, Smith SS. Reliability and responsiveness of the lower extremity functional scale and the anterior knee pain scale in patients with anterior knee pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(3):136–46.
43.
Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, Lorig K, Laurent D, Holman H. Capturing the patient’s view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA. 1999;29(12):1157–62. 282(.
44.
van der Windt DA, van der Heijden GJ, de Winter AF, Koes BW, Devillé W, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998;57(2):82–7.
45.
Stewart M, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Bogduk N, Nicholas M. Responsiveness of pain and disability measures for chronic whiplash. Spine. 2007;32(5)(1):580–5.
46.
Soroceanu A, Ching A, Abdu W, McGuire K. Relationship between preoperative expectations, satisfaction, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical spine surgery: a multicenter study. Spine. 2012;37(2):E103-8.CrossRef
47.
Tashjian RZ, Bradley MP, Tocci S, Rey J, Henn RF, Green A. Factors influencing patient satisfaction after rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):752–8.
48.
George SZ, Beneciuk JM, Lentz TA, Wu SS, Dai Y, Bialosky JE, et al. Optimal screening for prediction of referral and outcome (OSPRO) for musculoskeletal pain conditions: results from the validation cohort. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48(6):460–75.CrossRef
49.
George SZ, Beneciuk JM, Bialosky JE, Lentz TA, Zeppieri G, Pei Q, et al. Development of a Review-of-Systems Screening Tool for Orthopaedic Physical Therapists: Results From the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) Cohort. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(7):512–26.
50.
Osman A, Barrios FX, Gutierrez PM, Kopper BA, Merrifield T, Grittmann L. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: further psychometric evaluation with adult samples. J Behav Med. 2000;23(4):351–65.
51.
Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(4):524–32.CrossRef
52.
Briggs KK, Kocher MS, Rodkey WG, Steadman JR. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee score and Tegner activity scale for patients with meniscal injury of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(4):698–705.
53.
Kamper S. Global Rating of Change scales. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(4):289.CrossRef
54.
Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC. Comparison of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(2):214–21.
55.
George SZ, Beneciuk JM, Lentz TA, Wu SS. The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) in patients with musculoskeletal pain conditions: a longitudinal validation cohort from the USA. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6).
56.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.
57.
Main CJ, George SZ. Psychologically informed practice for management of low back pain: future directions in practice and research. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):820–4.
58.
Dunn WR, Kuhn JE, Sanders R, An Q, Baumgarten KM, Bishop JY, et al. 2013 Neer Award: predictors of failure of nonoperative treatment of chronic, symptomatic, full-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(8):1303–11.
59.
Zeppieri G, George SZ. Patient-defined desired outcome, success criteria, and expectation in outpatient physical therapy: a longitudinal assessment. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):29.
60.
Brown JL, Edwards PS, Atchison JW, Lafayette-Lucey A, Wittmer VT, Robinson ME. Defining patient-centered, multidimensional success criteria for treatment of chronic spine pain. Pain Med. 2008;9(7):851–62.
61.
Chester R, Shepstone L, Daniell H, Sweeting D, Lewis J, Jerosch-Herold C. Predicting response to physiotherapy treatment for musculoskeletal shoulder pain: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:203.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The influence of a cognitive behavioural approach on changing patient expectations for conservative care in shoulder pain treatment: a protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial
Authors
Heather Myers
Francis Keefe
Steven Z. George
June Kennedy
Ashley Davis Lake
Corina Martinez
Chad Cook
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04588-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research

Trend of serum C-reactive protein is associated with treatment outcome of hip Periprosthetic joint infection undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty: a case control study

Research

Histological and molecular features of the subacromial bursa of rotator cuff tears compared to non-tendon defects: a pilot study

Case report

Severe osteolysis and periprosthetic femoral fracture 45 years after acrylic hemiarthroplasty of the hip: a case report

Research

Intralesional nerve-sparing surgery versus non-surgical treatment for giant cell tumor of the sacrum

Research

Intraoperative hypothermia in patients undergoing Total knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional study from a developing country

Research article

Posterior fixation can further improve the segmental alignment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with oblique lumbar interbody fusion