The primary purpose of this scoping review was to describe the nature and extent of the published research that assesses the relationship between psychological features and patient-reported outcome following surgery or rehabilitation of upper extremity disease or injury.
Twenty-two included studies were examined for quantitative study design, outcome measure, inclusion/exclusion criteria, follow-up and recruitment strategy. Patient population and psychological assessment tools were examined for validity.
Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria for this study. Only 7 of the 22 studies were longitudinal and the rest were cross sectional studies. Depression was the most common psychological status of interest and was included in 17 studies. Pain catastrophizing was the psychological status of interest in 5 of the studies. Four studies considered anxiety, 3 considered pain anxiety, 3 considered distress, 2 considered coping, 2 considered catastrophic thinking, and 2 considered fear avoidance beliefs.
The majority of studies in this review were cross-sectional studies. Cross-sectional studies may not provide conclusive information about cause-and-effect relationships. This review encourages clinicians to be mindful of the psychological implications found in rehabilitation of individuals with upper extremity disease or injury along with being cognizant of choosing appropriate measurement tools that best represent each patient’s characteristics and diagnoses.
The nature of the research addressing psychological factors affecting outcomes after hand injury focus on negative traits and have limited strength to suggest causation as most have used cross-sectional designs. Stronger longitudinal designs and consideration of positive traits are needed in future studies.
via The assessment of psychological factors on upper extremity disability: A scoping review – Journal of Hand Therapy
Introduction and Purpose of the Study
After traumatic hand injury, extensive physical and psychological adaptation is required following surgical reconstruction. Recovery from injury can understandably be emotionally challenging, which may result in impaired quality of life and delayed physical recovery. However, the evidence base for identifying high-risk patients is limited.
A PROSPERO-registered literature search of MEDLINE (1946-present), EMBASE (1980-present), PsychInfo, and CINAHL electronic databases identified 5156 results for studies reporting psychological outcomes after acute hand trauma. Subsequent review and selection by 2 independent reviewers identified 19 studies for inclusion. These were poor quality level 2 prognostic studies, cross sectional or cohort in design, and varied widely in methodology, sample sizes, diagnostic methods, and cutoff values used to identify psychological symptoms. Data regarding symptoms, predisposing factors, and questionnaires used to identify them were extracted and analyzed.
Patients with amputations or a tendency to catastrophize suffered highest pain ratings. Persisting symptom presence at 3 months was the best predictor of chronicity. Many different questionnaires were used for symptom detection, but none had been specifically validated in a hand trauma population of patients. Few studies assessed the ability of selection tools to predict patients at high risk of developing adverse psychological outcomes.
Discussion and Conclusion
Despite a limited evidence base, screening at 3 months may detect post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and chronic pain, potentially allowing for early intervention and improved treatment outcomes.
Source: Systematic review: Predicting adverse psychological outcomes after hand trauma – Journal of Hand Therapy