Associations of Cognitive Appraisal and Patient Activation on Disability and Mental Health Outcomes: a Prospective Cohort Study of Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery

Overview

Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology

Date 2024 Jul 28

PMID 39069610

Authors

Richard L Skolasky

Joel A Finkelstein

Carolyn E Schwartz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: With the increased use of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to assess spine surgery outcomes, it is important to understand how patients interpret their health changes over time. The measurement of cognitive-appraisal processes enables the quantification of how individuals think about quality of life (QOL). This study examined how appraisal processes were associated with patients' views of their role in managing their health-patient activation.

Methods: This longitudinal cohort study from August 2019 to January 2022 included 222 adults undergoing spine surgery for cervical (n = 107) and/or lumbar (n = 148) pathology at an academic medical center. PROMs assessed disability (Neck Disability Index for cervical or Oswestry Disability Index for lumbar) and mental health (PROMIS-29 v2.0), cognitive-appraisal processes (QOLAP-SF), and patient activation (Patient Activation Measure). ANOVA models were used to examine the relationships between QOL and cognitive appraisal processes before and after surgery, overall and stratified by patient-activation stage. Effect sizes facilitated interpretation.

Results: There were significant improvements in pain-related disability and mental health following surgery. Cognitive appraisal processes explained substantial amounts of variance, particularly with changes in mental health (45% before surgery, 75% at three months, and 63%, at 12-months after surgery). With respect to physical disability, less disability was associated with a lesser focus on negative aspects of QOL. Appraisal explained the most variance before surgery for high-activation patients. At 12-months post-surgery, however, appraisal explained the most variance for the low-activation patients. Appraisal explained similar amounts of variance in mental health at baseline and three-months post-surgery for all activation groups, but substantially more variance in the low-activation group at 12-months post-surgery. There were differences in the direction of appraisal-outcome associations by activation group in selected appraisal items/domains.

Conclusions: Cognitive-appraisal processes demonstrate a significant relationship with QOL among spine surgery patients. These processes explain substantial variance in pain-related disability and mental health, especially among those high in activation before surgery and those low in activation at 12-months post-surgery. Our findings suggest that patients' ways of thinking about their health may be effective targets of motivational coaching, to help them become more engaged over the recovery trajectory.

Citing Articles

Psychopathological Influences on Surgical and Clinical Outcomes in Lumbar Disk Herniation: Prediction Models and Literature Analysis.

Galieri G, Orlando V, Mazzucchi E, Pignotti F, Cusumano D, Bazzu P J Pers Med. 2025; 15(2).

PMID: 39997325 PMC: 11857040. DOI: 10.3390/jpm15020048.

References

Schwartz C, Quaranto B, Rapkin B, Healy B, Vollmer T, Sprangers M . Fluctuations in appraisal over time in the context of stable versus non-stable health. Qual Life Res. 2013; 23(1):9-19. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0471-0. View

Schwartz C, Finkelstein J . Understanding inconsistencies in patient-reported outcomes after spine treatment: response shift phenomena. Spine J. 2009; 9(12):1039-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.05.010. View

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

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

Purvis T, Andreou E, Neuman B, Riley 3rd L, Skolasky R . Concurrent Validity and Responsiveness of PROMIS Health Domains Among Patients Presenting for Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 42(23):E1357-E1365. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002347. View

Schwartz C, Sprangers M . Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 48(11):1531-48. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00047-7. View

Skolasky R, MacKenzie E, Wegener S, Riley 3rd L . Patient activation and functional recovery in persons undergoing spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(18):1665-71. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00855. View

Skolasky R, MacKenzie E, Riley 3rd L, Wegener S . Psychometric properties of the Patient Activation Measure among individuals presenting for elective lumbar spine surgery. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18(10):1357-66. PMC: 3561629. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9549-0. View

Cleland J, Fritz J, Whitman J, Palmer J . The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(5):598-602. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000201241.90914.22. View

10.

Skolasky R, Maggard A, Wegener S, Riley 3rd L . Telephone-Based Intervention to Improve Rehabilitation Engagement After Spinal Stenosis Surgery: A Prospective Lagged Controlled Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(1):21-30. PMC: 6153441. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.17.00418. View

11.

Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris D, Coffey R . Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998; 36(1):8-27. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004. View

12.

Cummings L, Cooper G . Descriptive epidemiology of esophageal carcinoma in the Ohio Cancer Registry. Cancer Detect Prev. 2008; 32(1):87-92. PMC: 2483313. DOI: 10.1016/j.cdp.2008.02.005. View

13.

Cohen J . A power primer. Psychol Bull. 2009; 112(1):155-9. DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155. View

14.

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

15.

Anderson P, Carreon L, Glassman S . Response shift phenomenon. Does this apply to spine outcomes research?. Spine J. 2009; 9(12):1037-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.08.449. View

16.

Hibbard J, Stockard J, Mahoney E, Tusler M . Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004; 39(4 Pt 1):1005-26. PMC: 1361049. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x. View

17.

Carreon L, Bratcher K, Canan C, Burke L, Djurasovic M, Glassman S . Differentiating minimum clinically important difference for primary and revision lumbar fusion surgeries. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 18(1):102-6. DOI: 10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12727. View

18.

Hays R, Spritzer K, Schalet B, Cella D . PROMIS-29 v2.0 profile physical and mental health summary scores. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(7):1885-1891. PMC: 5999556. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1842-3. View

19.

Oort F . Towards a formal definition of response shift (in reply to G.W. Donaldson). Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(10):2353-5. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-005-3978-1. View

20.

Skolasky R, MacKenzie E, Wegener S, Riley 3rd L . Patient activation and adherence to physical therapy in persons undergoing spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(21):E784-91. PMC: 6153437. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818027f1. View