To Örebro University

Background Expectations for recovery are a known predictor for returning to work. Most studies seem to conclude that the higher the expectancy the better the outcome. However, the development of expectations over time is rarely researched and experimental studies show that realistic expectations rather than high expectancies are the most adaptive. This study aims to explore patterns of stability and change in expectations for recovery during the first weeks of a back-pain episode and how these patterns relate to other psychological variables and outcome.

Methods The study included 496 volunteer patients seeking treatment for work-related, acute back pain. The participants were measured with self-report scales of depression, fear of pain, life impact of pain, catastrophizing and expectations for recovery at two time points. A follow-up focusing on recovery and return to work was conducted 3 months later. A cluster analysis was conducted, categorizing the data on the trajectories of recovery expectations.

Results Cluster analysis revealed four clusters regarding the development of expectations for recovery during a 2-week period after pain onset. Three out of four clusters showed stability in their expectations as well as corresponding levels of proximal psychological factors. The fourth cluster showed increases in distress and a decrease in expectations for recovery. This cluster also has poor odds ratios for returning to work and recovery. Conclusion Decreases in expectancies for recovery seem as important as baseline values in terms of outcome, which has clinical and theoretical implications.

BACKGROUND: Increasing recall of instructions and advice in a pain consultation is important, since it is a prerequisite for adherence to treatment recommendations. However, interference due to pain-related distress may result in poor recall. Whereas there are some indications that recall can be increased by empathic communication that reduces interference, this interesting possibility remains largely untested experimentally. The current experiment aimed at studying effects of empathic communication, and more specifically validation, on recall during a pain test and possible mediators and moderators of this effect.

METHOD: Participants received either validating (N=25) or invalidating responses (N=25) from the experimenter during a pain provoking task, followed by self-report measures of interference (affect, situational pain catastrophizing) and recall (accurate and false memories of words).

RESULTS: As expected, the validated group exhibited higher accurate recall and less false memories following the pain test as compared to the invalidated group. This was partly due to the effect of interference being counteracted by moderating the relationship between pain catastrophizing and recall.

CONCLUSION: These novel results suggest that validating communication can counteract interference due to pain catastrophizing on recall, at least in a controlled experimental setting.

IMPLICATIONS: Good communication by health professionals is of utmost importance for adherence to pain management. The current results expand our knowledge on the effects of pain communication by establishing and explaining a clear link between empathic communication and recall, highlighting the role of pain catastrophizing.