Functional Status Correlates of Change and Stability in Appraisal After Spine Surgery: Earlier Versus Later Effects

Overview

Journal J Pers Med

Date 2024 Mar 28

PMID 38541071

Authors

Carolyn E Schwartz

Katrina Borowiec

Bruce D Rapkin

Joel A Finkelstein

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Spine surgery generally yields a notable improvement in patients' health state, and there is variability in measured patient outcomes after spine surgery. The present work aimed to describe for clinicians how appraisal underlies their patients' experience of healthcare interventions. This prospective longitudinal cohort study (n = 156) included adults undergoing spine surgery for degenerative spinal conditions. The analysis was a descriptive illustration of the relationship between change in the spine-related disability using the Oswestry Disability Index and change in cognitive-appraisal processes using the Quality-of-Life Appraisal Profilev2-Short Form, early versus later during the recovery trajectory (i.e., between baseline and 3 months post-surgery; and between 3 and 12 months post-surgery). Cognitive-appraisal processes related to Sampling of Experience showed greater change soon after surgery, whereas Standards of Comparison appraisals changed more later in the recovery trajectory. Different appraisal processes were emphasized by patients who reported worsening of the spine-related disability, as compared to those who reported no change or improvement. These findings suggest that changes in appraisal differ depending on the individual's experience of the impact of spine surgery. Appraisal processes thus reflect an ongoing dynamic in adaptation to changing function.

References

Spinhoven P, Ter Kuile M, Kole-Snijders A, Hutten Mansfeld M, den Ouden D, Vlaeyen J . Catastrophizing and internal pain control as mediators of outcome in the multidisciplinary treatment of chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2004; 8(3):211-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.08.003. View

Sniderman J, Stark R, Schwartz C, Imam H, Finkelstein J, Nousiainen M . Patient Factors That Matter in Predicting Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes: A Machine-Learning Approach. J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36(6):2024-2032. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.038. View

Chang H, Herr K, Sohn J, Cha B, Yom Y . Prediction of pain outcomes in Korean older adults: use of a structural equation model. Pain Med. 2007; 8(1):75-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00231.x. View

Schwartz C, Rapkin B, Borowiec K, Finkelstein J . Cognitive Processes during Recovery: Moving toward Personalized Spine Surgery Outcomes. J Pers Med. 2022; 12(10). PMC: 9605664. DOI: 10.3390/jpm12101545. View

Weinstein J, Tosteson T, Lurie J, Tosteson A, Blood E, Hanscom B . Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(8):794-810. PMC: 2576513. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707136. View

Schwartz C, Stark R, Rapkin B . Capturing patient experience: does quality-of-life appraisal entail a new class of measurement?. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020; 4(1):85. PMC: 7591682. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-020-00254-1. View

Kerns R . Evidence that cognitive decline mediates the relationship between pain and disability in the elderly. Pain Med. 2006; 7(1):1-2. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2006.00080.x. View

Nakarai H, Kato S, Kawamura N, Higashikawa A, Takeshita Y, Fukushima M . Minimal clinically important difference in patients who underwent decompression alone for lumbar degenerative disease. Spine J. 2021; 22(4):549-560. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.10.010. View

Kanaan S, Melton B, Waitman L, Simpson M, Sharma N . The effect of age and gender on acute postoperative pain and function following lumbar spine surgeries. Physiother Res Int. 2020; 26(2):e1888. DOI: 10.1002/pri.1888. View

10.

Copay A, Glassman S, Subach B, Berven S, Schuler T, Carreon L . Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008; 8(6):968-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006. View

11.

Kaptain G, Shaffrey C, Alden T, Young J, WHITEHILL R . The influence of secondary gain on surgical outcome: a comparison between cervical and lumbar discectomy. Neurosurg Focus. 2006; 5(2):e6. DOI: 10.3171/foc.1998.5.2.9. View

12.

Vlaeyen J, Morley S . Cognitive-behavioral treatments for chronic pain: what works for whom?. Clin J Pain. 2004; 21(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1097/00002508-200501000-00001. View

13.

Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang M, Fossel A, Katz J . The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum. 2003; 49(2):156-63. DOI: 10.1002/art.10993. View

14.

Sprangers M, Schwartz C . Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 48(11):1507-15. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00045-3. View

15.

Schwartz C, Borowiec K, Rapkin B . Depression trajectories during the COVID-19 pandemic: a secondary analysis of the impact of cognitive-appraisal processes. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2023; 7(1):67. PMC: 10344849. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-023-00600-z. View

16.

Schwartz C, Stark R, Rapkin B . Creating idiometric short-form measures of cognitive appraisal: balancing theory and pragmatics. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021; 5(1):57. PMC: 8276902. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-021-00317-x. View

17.

Rapkin B, Schwartz C . Advancing quality-of-life research by deepening our understanding of response shift: a unifying theory of appraisal. Qual Life Res. 2019; 28(10):2623-2630. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02248-z. View

18.

Finkelstein J, Stark R, Lee J, Schwartz C . Patient factors that matter in predicting spine surgery outcomes: a machine learning approach. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021; 35(1):127-136. DOI: 10.3171/2020.10.SPINE201354. View

19.

Weinstein J, Lurie J, Tosteson T, Skinner J, Hanscom B, Tosteson A . Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort. JAMA. 2006; 296(20):2451-9. PMC: 2562254. DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.20.2451. View

20.

Brydges C . Effect Size Guidelines, Sample Size Calculations, and Statistical Power in Gerontology. Innov Aging. 2019; 3(4):igz036. PMC: 6736231. DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igz036. View