Dataset Information

Identification of clinically-useful cut scores of the Traumatic Injuries Distress Scale (TIDS) for predicting rate of recovery following musculoskeletal trauma.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The Traumatic Injuries Distress Scale (TIDS) is a 12-item self-report tool intended for prognostic risk phenotyping in people with acute musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma. The initial validation study showed good associations with outcomes 12 weeks later in a cohort of 72 acutely injured patients from one region in Canada. This study aims to provide further clinical utility through identification of meaningful cut scores in a larger, mixed geography sample, and expands the prediction window from 12 to 52 weeks.

Methods

Data were drawn from databanks in London, Canada and Chicago, United States. Participants were recruited within 3 weeks of non-catastrophic MSK trauma and followed for 12 months. Using outcomes trajectories, the TIDS underwent linear regression-based analysis to predict 52-week outcomes, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to identify discriminative accuracy and meaningful cut scores.

Results

N = 224 participants with acute trauma were followed and both %Interference and Pain Severity were captured at intake and 3 follow-ups to establish curvilinear recovery trajectories. The TIDS explained significant variance in both the interference and severity outcomes after controlling for sex, region of injury, and baseline scores. ROC analysis revealed significant discriminative accuracy for predicting both the trajectories and the distal outcomes over 52 weeks. The TIDS was more accurate for identifying the low-risk than high-risk patients.

Conclusion

The TIDS is a useful tool for 'ruling out' high risk of poor outcome in a mixed sample of participants from two different countries.

Impact statement

The TIDS will be a useful tool for clinicians to predict the rate of recovery by displaying meaningful cut-scores for their patients after an acute musculoskeletal injury. This could lead to reduced burden of care for low risk patients and more informed treatment options for higher risk patients.

SUBMITTER: Walton DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7987158 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGiven limited resources for injury prevention, it is essential to determine which mechanisms of injury to target to provide the most benefit to the largest proportion of the population. We developed objective, evidence-based injury prevention priority scores (IPPSs) for the Canadian population across 4 prevention perspectives: mortality, injury severity, resource use and societal cost.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of all injuries in Canada from 2009/10 to 2013/14. Hospital admissions were obtained from the Discharge Abstract Database, and deaths from the Statistics Canada Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database. For each mechanism of injury, we calculated an IPPS as a balanced measure of injury frequency and 1) mortality rate, 2) median 1 - ICISS (Injury Severity Score derived from the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision, enhanced Canadian version), 3) median cost per hospital stay or 4) median potential years of life lost (PYLL), providing a ranking of mechanisms of injury in priority order. The IPPS by definition has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The higher the IPPS, the higher the priority for injury prevention.ResultsA total of 694 535 injuries were identified over the study period. The most frequent mechanism of injury was falls (391 068 [56.3%]). The overall mortality rate was 0.09 deaths/injured person, the median 1 - ICISS was 0.017, the median cost was $5217, and the median PYLL was 0. The mechanisms with the 3 highest IPPSs were falls (75), self-harm (67) and drowning (66) for mortality; falls (77), drowning (70) and suffocation (61) for severity; falls (80), suffocation (63) and fire (60) for resource use; and falls (72), assault (62), and firearms and legal interventions (59 in both cases) for societal cost.ConclusionThis study produced IPPSs for traumatic injuries in Canada that provide objective and quantifiable methods for identifying mechanisms of injury to target for specific prevention initiatives. Preventing falls would provide the most benefit to the largest proportion of Canadians and should be prioritized in injury-prevention policy.

Project description:BackgroundPsychosocial variables such as fear of movement, depression, and pain catastrophizing have been shown to be important prognostic factors for a wide range of pain-related outcomes. The potential for a cumulative relationship between different elevated psychosocial factors and problematic recovery following physical therapy has not been fully explored.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether the level of risk for problematic recovery following work-related injuries is associated with the number of elevated psychosocial factors.DesignThis was a prospective cohort study.MethodsTwo hundred two individuals with subacute, work-related musculoskeletal injuries completed a 7-week physical therapy intervention and participated in testing at treatment onset and 1 year later. An index of psychosocial risk was created from measures of fear of movement, depression, and pain catastrophizing. This index was used to predict the likelihood of experiencing problematic recovery in reference to pain intensity and return-to-work status at the 1-year follow-up.ResultsLogistic regression analysis revealed that the number of prognostic factors was a significant predictor of persistent pain and work disability at the 1-year follow-up. Chi-square analysis revealed that the risk for problematic recovery increased for patients with elevated levels on at least 1 psychosocial factor and was highest when patients had elevated scores on all 3 psychosocial factors.LimitationsThe physical therapy interventions used in this study were not standardized. This study did not include a specific measure for physical function.ConclusionsThe number of elevated psychosocial factors present in the subacute phase of recovery has a cumulative effect on the level of risk for problematic recovery 1 year later. This research suggests that a cumulative prognostic factor index could be used in clinical settings to improve prognostic accuracy and to facilitate clinical decision making.

Project description:BackgroundAnnually in the UK, 40,000-90,000 people are involved in a traumatic incident. Severity of injury and how well people recover from their injuries varies, with physiotherapy playing a key role in the rehabilitation process. Recovery is evaluated using multiple outcome measures for perceived levels of pain severity and quality of life. It is unclear however, what constitutes a successful recovery from injury throughout the course of recovery from the patient perspective, and whether this aligns with physiotherapists' perspectives.MethodsA qualitative study using two approaches: Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis following the Kreuger framework for focus groups. A purposive sample of 20 patients who have experienced musculoskeletal trauma within the past 4 weeks and 12 physiotherapists who manage this patient population will be recruited from a single trauma centre in the UK. Semi-structured interviews with patients at 4 weeks, 6 and 12 months following injury, and 2 focus groups with physiotherapists will be undertaken at one time point. Views and perceptions on the definition of recovery and what constitutes a successful recovery will be explored using both methods, with a focus on the lived experience and patient journey following musculoskeletal trauma, and how this changes through the process of recovery. Data from both the semi-structured interviews and focus groups will be analysed separately and then integrated and synthesised into key themes ensuring similarities and differences are identified. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness e.g., reflexivity will be employed.DiscussionRecovery following musculoskeletal trauma is complex and understanding of the concept of successful recovery and how this changes over time following an injury is largely unknown. It is imperative to understand the patient perspective and whether these perceptions align with current views of physiotherapists. A greater understanding of recovery following musculoskeletal trauma has potential to change clinical care, optimise patient centred care and improve efficiency and clinical decision making during rehabilitation. This in turn can contribute to improved clinical effectiveness, patient outcome and patient satisfaction with potential service and economic cost savings. This study has ethical approval (IRAS 287781/REC 20/PR/0712).

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine associations between level of kinesiophobia and improvement in physical function during recovery from lower extremity injury.MethodsA total 430 adults (mean [SD]: age = 27.3 [6.4] years; sex = 70.5% men; body mass index = 27.6 [5.2] kg/m2) were included in the analyses. Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, physical function was evaluated in parallel with treatment from a physical therapist at the initial visit and every 3 weeks until final visit or up to 6 months. A Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-17) score of >41 indicated elevated TSK. Four TSK groups were identified: (1) TSK score improved from >41 at initial visit to <41 by final visit (TSK_I), (2) TSK score was <41 at initial and final visits (TSK-), (3) TSK score was >41 at initial and final visits (TSK+), and (4) TSK score worsened from <41 at initial visit to ≥41 by final visit (TSK_W). Linear mixed effects models were used to examine differences between groups in improved physical function over time, with adjustment for depression and self-efficacy.ResultsGroups with elevated kinesiophobia at the final visit had smaller positive improvements in physical function (mean change [95% CI]: TSK+ = 7.1 [4.8-9.4]; TSK_W: 6.0 [2.6-9.4]) compared with groups without elevated kinesiophobia at the final visit (TSK_I = 9.8 [6.4-13.3]; TSK- = 9.7 [8.1-11.3]) by 12 weeks.ConclusionsElevated kinesiophobia that persists or develops over the course of care is associated with less improvement in physical function within military and civilian cohorts.ImpactThe findings of this prospective longitudinal study support the need to assess for elevated kinesiophobia throughout the course of care because of its association with decreased improvement in physical function.Lay summaryTo help improve your physical function, your physical therapist can monitor the interaction between fear of movement and your clinical outcomes over the course of treatment.

Project description:BackgroundRecovery trajectories support early identification of delayed recovery and can inform personalized management or phenotyping of risk profiles in patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the trajectories in pain severity and functional interference following non-catastrophic musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma in an international, mixed injury sample.MethodsA prospective longitudinal cohort (n = 241) was formed from patients identified within four weeks of trauma, from attendance at emergency or urgent care centres located in London, ON, Canada, or Chicago, IL, USA. Pain interference was measured via the Brief Pain Inventory (London cohort) or the Neck Disability Index (Chicago cohort). Pain severity was captured in both cohorts using the numeric pain rating scale. Growth mixture modeling and RM repeated measures ANOVA approaches identified distinct trajectories of recovery within pain interference and pain severity data.ResultsFor pain interference, the three trajectories were labeled accordingly: Class 1 = Rapid recovery (lowest intercept, full or near full recovery by 3 months, 32.0% of the sample); Class 2 = Delayed recovery (higher intercept, recovery by 12 months, 26.7% of the sample); Class 3 = Minimal or no recovery (higher intercept, persistently high interference scores at 12 months, 41.3% of the sample). For pain severity, the two trajectories were labeled: Class 1 = Rapid recovery (lower intercept, recovery by 3 months, 81.3% of the sample); and Class 2 = Minimal or no recovery (higher intercept, flat curve, 18.7% of the sample). The "Minimal or No Recovery" trajectory could be predicted by female sex and axial (vs. peripheral) region of trauma with 74.3% accuracy across the 3 classes for the % Interference outcome. For the Pain Severity outcome, only region (axial trauma, 81.3% accuracy) predicted the "Minimal or No Recovery" trajectory.ConclusionsThese results suggest that three meaningful recovery trajectories can be identified in an international, mixed-injury sample when pain interference is the outcome, and two recovery trajectories emerge when pain severity is the outcome. Females in the sample or people who suffered axial injuries (head, neck, or low back) were more likely to be classed in poor outcome trajectories.Trial registrationNational Institutes of Health - clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02711085 ; Retrospectively registered Mar 17, 2016).