Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Chronic musculoskeletal pain

Dawn Carnes and Martin Underwood
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (541): 604-605.
Dawn Carnes
Roles: Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Underwood
Roles: Professor of General Practice
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Managing painful musculoskeletal disorders is a major part of general practice. Estimates for the proportion of the population consulting annually for musculoskeletal disorders, derived from general practice consultation databases, range from 6.6 to 20.7%.1 Fortunately, many patients improve independent of any treatments we may advise. However, a minority develop chronic pain and disability which has a substantial health and social impact. Predicting which patients are more likely to have a poor outcome from their musculoskeletal pain may help us to make better use of resources. The pain that presents most commonly for treatment — and which is perceived to have the highest economic cost — is low back pain. Consequently, it has attracted considerable research and policy interest in recent years. There is increasing recognition that low back pain commonly coexists with other musculoskeletal pain; and that the features of different non-specific pain syndromes may also have elements in common and frequently occur together.2–4

In this issue of the Journal, Mallen et al report a systematic review of prospective cohort studies for a range of musculoskeletal pain.5 They raised concerns about the quality of some studies and noted that few studies were of non-spinal pain; however, a range of factors predictive of poor outcome was identified. The most common were baseline pain severity, duration, and pain at multiple sites. Similar factors were identified as predictors of outcome for pain in different body regions. This supports the notion that there are more similarities than differences between low back pain and other non-specific pain syndromes and suggests that approaches used for low back pain may be applied more generically.

Questions remain unanswered. Is pain in certain areas more disabling than in others? Is low back pain the most disabling of these pain? Should we, as Mallen et al suggest, carry out more research in the area of peripheral joint pain rather than axial pain? Interestingly, very few studies they identified focused on prognostic indicators for recovery from, or adaptation to, musculoskeletal pain.

Much existing research is body site-specific. However, as others have observed, site-specific chronic pain is less common than multi-site or widespread chronic pain.2,6–8 It is undoubtedly easier to compartmentalise pain for research, economic evaluation, treatment, and management; but by doing so we may be providing a distorted image of the distribution and nature of pain. Consequently, we may be mismanaging patients, allocating funding and other resources inappropriately, and disregarding some of the more important factors that predict a poor overall patient outcome.

Considering musculoskeletal pain in isolation may still be too narrow a focus. Patients with chronic widespread pain may be more likely to consult their GP about other non-specific disorders.9 A generic whole-patient approach used by the Expert Patient Programme to address such disorders is an attractive option. Unfortunately, although this approach seems to have a modest effect on self-efficacy, it does not appear to have a significant impact on clinically relevant outcomes when evaluated in randomised trials in the UK.10

Some factors, such as duration of pain and possibly number of sites affected, are not alterable. Conversely, factors such as somatic perceptions, coping, distress, anxiety, and depression are potentially modifiable. Knowledge of these predictors will improve GPs' ability to identify patients with poor prognoses; their clinical judgement is already nearly as good as the more complex prediction rules with which they have been compared.11

Even for low back pain, there is a lack of evidence as to whether targeting more intensive or specific treatments to particular patients will affect clinically relevant outcomes.12 New work is needed to find out whether identifying such factors will enable us to identify which patients are likely to gain the greatest benefit from particular treatments.

Future investigators should consider that Malen et al were unable to pool data from different studies of musculoskeletal pain because of marked heterogeneity in the populations studied, data collected, and analytical approaches used. The MMICS collaboration has started to address this issue, proposing a core set of factors to be collected in prospective cohort studies of acute back pain.13 This approach could also inform the design of future cohort studies in the wider spectrum of musculoskeletal pain.

Observational studies may also need to consider the impact of health and social care systems on outcome in addition to individual patient factors. The cost of supporting a large population of patients with either local or widespread chronic pain includes healthcare costs, incapacity benefit, and the loss of productive working time. Addressing indicators that predict poor prognosis and exploring those that predict recovery or improve outcomes and response to treatment, should help to inform the delivery of effective and appropriate care, thereby lessening the overall burden for individuals and society.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2007.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Jordan K,
    2. Clarke AM,
    3. Symmons DP,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Measuring disease prevalence: a comparison of musculoskeletal disease using four general practice consultation databases. Br J Gen Pract 57(534):7–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Carnes D,
    2. Parsons S,
    3. Ashby D,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Chronic musculoskeletal pain rarely presents in a single body site: results from a UK population study. Rheumatology 46(7):1168–1170.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Davies HT,
    2. Crombie IK,
    3. Macrae WA
    (1998) Where does it hurt? Describing body locations of chronic pain. Eur J Pain 2(1):69–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Hestbaek L,
    2. Leboeuf-Yde C,
    3. Manniche C
    (2003) Is low back pain part of a general health pattern or is it a separate and distinctive entity? A critical literature review of comorbidity with low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 26(4):243–252.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Mallen CD,
    2. Peat G,
    3. Thomas E,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 57(541):655–661.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Croft P,
    2. Lewis M,
    3. Hannaford P
    (2003) Is all chronic pain the same? A 25-year follow-up study. Pain 105(1–2):309–317.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Andersson HI
    (2004) The course of non-malignant chronic pain: a 12-year follow-up of a cohort from the general population. Eur J Pain 8(1):47–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Smith BH,
    2. Elliot AM,
    3. Hannaford P,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Factors related to the onset and persistence of chronic back pain in the community: results from a general population follow-up study. Spine 29(9):1032–1040.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Rohrbeck J,
    2. Jordan K,
    3. Croft P
    (2007) The frequency and characteristics of chronic widespread pain in general practice: a case-control study. Br J Gen Pract 57(535):109–115.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Griffiths C,
    2. Foster G,
    3. Ramsay J,
    4. et al.
    (2007) How effective are expert patient (lay led) education programmes for chronic disease? BMJ 334(7606):1254–1256.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Jellema P,
    2. van der Windt DA,
    3. van der Horst HE,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Prediction of an unfavourable course of low back pain in general practice: comparison of four instruments. Br J Gen Pract 57(534):15–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Underwood MR,
    2. Morton V,
    3. Farrin A
    (2007) Do baseline characteristics predict response to treatment for low back pain? Secondary analysis of the UK BEAM dataset [ISRCTN32683578]. Rheumatology, doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem113.
  11. ↵
    1. Pincus T,
    2. Santos R,
    3. Breen A,
    4. et al.,
    5. on behalf of the MMICS collaboration
    (2007) A review and proposal for a core set of factors for prospective cohorts in back pain; the MMICS Statement. Arthritis Rheum, in press.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 57 (541)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 57, Issue 541
August 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Chronic musculoskeletal pain
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Chronic musculoskeletal pain
Dawn Carnes, Martin Underwood
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (541): 604-605.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Chronic musculoskeletal pain
Dawn Carnes, Martin Underwood
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (541): 604-605.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Inclusion health and missingness in health care: dig where you stand
  • Concussion in sport: are new guidelines a game changer for primary care?
  • E-cigarettes in young people: applying the precautionary principle in primary care
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

Tweets by @BJGPjournal

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242