How do people with chronically painful joint hypermobility syndrome make decisions about activity?

Anne Schmidt; Kelley Corcoran; Rodney Grahame; Amanda C de C Williams

doi:10.1177/2049463714554112

How do people with chronically painful joint hypermobility syndrome make decisions about activity?

Br J Pain. 2015 Aug;9(3):157-66. doi: 10.1177/2049463714554112.

Authors

Anne Schmidt¹, Kelley Corcoran², Rodney Grahame³, Amanda C de C Williams⁴

Affiliations

¹ Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Aylesbury, UK.
² Pain Management Centre, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
³ Department of Rheumatology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK ; Centre for Rheumatology, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
⁴ Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.

Abstract

Background: The model of activity avoidance prompted by fear of increased pain and/or harm dominates understanding and research into activity limitation in chronic pain. Yet, the accounts of people with chronic pain on decisions about activity limitation are rarely heard beyond the confines of fear and avoidance questionnaires.

Methods: We used semi-structured interviews to explore the decisions of 11 women attending a pain management clinic with chronically painful Joint Hypermobility Syndrome (JHS).

Results: Six themes emerged from Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: the overall aim of keeping pain to a manageable level, considering whether the planned activity was worth it and, running through all judgements, the influence of pain intensity. The decision was tipped towards avoidance by unpredictability of pain and by high emotional cost and towards going ahead with the activity by the wish to exert control and by low emotional cost. Many accounts described a specifiable cost-benefit analysis of individual decisions, weighing the importance of each activity against its potential aversive consequences, which only in a minority of cases was dominated by fear of pain or injury.

Conclusion: Assumptions of fear as the basis of activity avoidance should not be used uncritically in clinical settings. Decisions about activity should explore beyond pain expectancy, incorporating goals, values, and decision processes.

Summary points: The model of fear of pain or re/injury and associated avoidance, an important insight that has generated effective therapeutic interventions, risks being over-applied and assumed rather than demonstrated. Patients' own accounts, using qualitative analysis of interview in 11 women with long term chronic pain associated with joint hypermobility, give a more nuanced description of complex decision-making around activity. While a few activities were unquestionably avoided because of such fears, others were undertaken when benefits (according to personal values, such as children's needs) outweighed costs in pain and distress. We suggest that activity needs to be discussed with patients beyond asking about avoidance and in the context of their lifestyle choices.

Keywords: Fear; avoidance; decision-making; disability.