Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39589313›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2025

Does Discussing Patient-reported Outcome Measures Increase Pain Self-efficacy at an Orthopaedic Visit? A Prospective, Sequential, Comparative Series.

Emily A Schultz, Giselle I Gomez, Michael J Gardner, Serena S Hu, Marc Safran, Derek F Amanatullah, Lauren M Shapiro, Robin N Kamal

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Emily A SchultzVOICES Health Policy Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2064-8392
Giselle I GomezVOICES Health Policy Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Michael J GardnerVOICES Health Policy Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0284-3397
Serena S HuVOICES Health Policy Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Marc SafranVOICES Health Policy Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Derek F AmanatullahVOICES Health Policy Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6203-5853
Lauren M ShapiroDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Robin N KamalVOICES Health Policy Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3011-6712

Funding

Addressing Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Distal Radius FracturesK23AR082960 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Lauren M Shapiro · 2024 to 2026
$504k
NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR082960
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain self-efficacy, or the ability to carry out desired activities in the presence of pain, can affect a patient's ability to function before and after orthopaedic surgery. Previous studies suggest that shared decision-making practices such as discussing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can activate patients and improve their pain self-efficacy. However, the ability of PROMs to influence pain self-efficacy in patients who have undergone orthopaedic surgery has yet to be investigated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is immediately discussing the results of a PROM associated with an increase pain self-efficacy in new patients presenting to the orthopaedic surgery clinic? (2) Is there a correlation between patient resilience or patient involvement in decision-making in changes in pain self-efficacy?

methodsThis was a prospective, sequential, comparative series completed between February to October 2023 at a single large tertiary referral center at a multispecialty orthopaedic clinic. Orthopaedic subspecialties included total joint arthroplasty, spine, hand, sports, and trauma. The first 64 patients underwent standard care, and the following 64 had a conversation with their orthopaedic surgeon about their PROMs during the initial intake visit. We collected scores from the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function form (PF-SF10a) and data on demographic characteristics before the visit. The PSEQ is a validated PROM used to measure pain self-efficacy, while the BRS measures the ability of patients to recover from stress, and the PROMIS PF-SF10a is used to assess overall physical function. PROMs have been utilized frequently for their ability to report the real-time physical and psychological well-being of patients. In the standard care group, the PROMIS PF-SF10a score was not discussed with the patient. In the PROMs group, the physician discussed the PROMIS PF-SF10a score using a script that gave context to the patient's score. Additional conversation about the patient's score was permitted but not required for all patients. Scores from the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION-5) instrument were recorded during the visit as a measure of patient involvement in clinical decision-making. After the visit, both groups completed the PSEQ. The primary outcome was change in the PSEQ. Change in pain self-efficacy was recorded as greater or less than the minimum clinically important difference, previously defined at 8.5 points for the PSEQ [ 10 ]. The secondary outcomes were correlation between PSEQ change and the BRS or OPTION-5.

resultsBetween the PROMs and standard care groups, there was no difference in the change in PSEQ scores from before the visit to after (mean ± SD change in control 4 ± 10 versus change in PROMs group 3 ± 7, mean difference 1 [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.0 to 4.0]; p = 0.29). Fifty-six percent (36 of 64) of patients in the standard care group demonstrated an increase in pain self-efficacy (of whom 22% [14 of 64] had clinically important improvements), and 59% (38 of 64) of patients in the PROMs group demonstrated an increase in pain self-efficacy (of whom 19% [12 of 64] had clinically important improvements). In the control group, there was no correlation between the change in PSEQ score and resiliency (BRS score r = -0.13 [95% CI -0.36 to 0.12]; p = 0.30) or patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION-5 r = 0.003 [95% CI -0.24 to 0.25]; p = 0.98). Similarly, in the PROMs group, there was no correlation between the change in PSEQ score and resiliency (BRS score r = -0.10 [95% CI -0.33 to 0.16]; p = 0.45) or patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION-5 r = -0.02 [95% CI -0.26 to 0.23]; p = 0.88).

conclusionDiscussing PROMs results (PROMIS PF-SF10a) at the point of care did not increase pain self-efficacy during one visit. Therefore, surgeons do not need to discuss pain self-efficacy PROM scores in order to influence patient pain self-efficacy. While PROMs remain valuable tools for assessing patient outcomes, further work may assess whether the collection of PROMs itself may increase pain self-efficacy or whether longitudinal discussion of PROMs with patients changes pain self-efficacy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresPatient ParticipationPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSelf EfficacyAdultAgedDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPhysician-Patient RelationsProspective StudiesResilience, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID39589313
PMCPMC11936582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.