A Scoping Review of the Evidence regarding Assessment and Management of Psychological Features of Shoulder Pain.
Journal
Rehabilitation research and practice
ISSN: 2090-2867
Titre abrégé: Rehabil Res Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101566862
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
19
04
2021
revised:
10
06
2021
accepted:
04
09
2021
entrez:
11
10
2021
pubmed:
12
10
2021
medline:
12
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A scoping review of research studies identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL and graduate theses identified using Google Scholar was conducted to determine studies and systematic reviews that addressed the management of psychological aspects of shoulder pain with or without neck pain. The search terms included psychological factors, anxiety, depression, catastrophic thinking, fear of movement, and psychological treatments. Two investigators screened study titles and abstracts. Data extraction, content analysis, and thematic coding focused on the dimensions of pain addressed (emotional, behavioural, and cognitive) and treatment approaches used (dimensions targeted, specific treatment parameters) and the linkage between treatment targets/rationale with interventions/outcomes measured. Ten studies (seven randomized trials and three cohorts) were identified that addressed the psychological aspects of shoulder pain. Out of seven RCTs, four compared psychological interventions with usual care. Eight studies used cognitive approaches, including emotional freedom techniques (EFT), pain coping strategies (PCS), physical-cognitive-mindfulness training (PCMT), psychological flexibility, face-to-face cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT), and cognitive therapy using virtual reality (V.R.). Three studies used the behavioural approaches as their intervention, including behavioural therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET). Pain intensity was addressed as the primary outcome in two studies and as a secondary outcome in five studies. Cognitive factors were evaluated in 50% of the articles using nine different measures. Emotional factors were evaluated in 80% of articles using ten different measures. Reduction of pain intensity and catastrophic thinking concerning pain was achieved in most studies using a biopsychosocial approach (70%). Applying a behavioural approach was associated with reductions in kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing. Cognitive approaches had a positive association with reductions in the emotional aspect of pain. Only one study specifically linked rationale or specific physical and psychosocial treatment targets with the treatments provided and outcomes measured. Small pools of studies indicate that the rationale and treatment targeting are poorly defined in biopsychosocial interventions for shoulder pain. However, these benefits have been demonstrated when cognitive or behavioural components are added to the standard physical treatment of shoulder pain. A better definition of treatment targets, description of intervention components, and linkage of outcomes to targets are needed to advance our understanding of optimizing bio-psychosocial approaches.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34631168
doi: 10.1155/2021/7211201
pmc: PMC8497138
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
7211201Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Maryam Farzad et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Behav Res Ther. 2011 Nov;49(11):748-55
pubmed: 21885034
Pain. 2005 Aug;116(3):264-275
pubmed: 15964686
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Nov;40(11):694-704
pubmed: 20972340
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2010 Apr;6(4):210-6
pubmed: 20357790
Health Psychol. 2007 Jan;26(1):1-9
pubmed: 17209691
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1990 Oct;58(5):573-9
pubmed: 2147702
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Apr 15;25(8):1021-7
pubmed: 10767816
J Psychiatr Res. 2017 Aug;91:156-163
pubmed: 28433860
Musculoskeletal Care. 2017 Dec;15(4):413-421
pubmed: 28371175
J Occup Rehabil. 2014 Sep;24(3):446-57
pubmed: 24077863
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 18;19(1):e22
pubmed: 28100440
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Aug;95(34):e4430
pubmed: 27559950
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jun 1;32(16):1703-11
pubmed: 24799497
Aust J Physiother. 2004;50(1):33-8
pubmed: 14987190
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Aug;95(34):e3945
pubmed: 27559939
Pain. 2011 Jun;152(6):1431-1438
pubmed: 21474244
Phys Ther. 2011 May;91(5):700-11
pubmed: 21451097
Behav Res Ther. 2010 Feb;48(2):141-6
pubmed: 19853243
Scand J Pain. 2016 Oct;13:43-58
pubmed: 28850534
Cogn Behav Ther. 2008;37(3):169-82
pubmed: 18608312
Lancet. 2011 Mar 5;377(9768):823-36
pubmed: 21334061
Man Ther. 2015 Feb;20(1):216-20
pubmed: 25090974
Ann Behav Med. 2017 Aug;51(4):547-554
pubmed: 28213633
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 May;101(5):750-761
pubmed: 32004517
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Jul;14(7):502-11
pubmed: 23719569
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013 Nov-Dec;38(6):481-91
pubmed: 24141874
Aust J Physiother. 2005;51(2):87-94
pubmed: 15924511
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 May 20;13:75
pubmed: 22607546
J Hand Ther. 2018 Oct - Dec;31(4):511-523
pubmed: 29198477
Br J Pain. 2016 Nov;10(4):186-197
pubmed: 27867508
Pain Rep. 2020 Sep 23;5(5):e844
pubmed: 33490840
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Oct 15;57(7):1134-42
pubmed: 17907231
Pain. 2006 Sep;124(1-2):18-26
pubmed: 16644133
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Aug 03;12:114
pubmed: 22862833
Pain. 2015 May;156(5):837-848
pubmed: 25734997
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007 Jun;21(3):403-25
pubmed: 17602991
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 09;16:15
pubmed: 26857112
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Oct 05;18(10):e265
pubmed: 27707686
Scand J Rheumatol. 1998;27(1):16-25
pubmed: 9506873
Disabil Rehabil. 2018 Jan;40(1):1-9
pubmed: 27871193