A scoping review to explore the use of the Health Care Providers’ Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesPatients’ interactions with health care providers influence back pain–related outcomes. The Health Care Providers’ Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC‐PAIRS) is an instrument that assesses providers’ attitudes and beliefs about patients with persistent back pain, with lower scores implying that persistent pain does not indicate disability or limitation of activities. This scoping review aims to explore the extent of research involving the HC‐PAIRS.Literature SurveyPubMed, Embase, and PEDro databases were searched from inception to April 2022.MethodsExtracted HC‐PAIRS scores were standardized to 15‐item scores and categorized by profession, student or professional status, and pre/post‐educational intervention to evaluate scores. Psychometric properties and educational interventions of the HC‐PAIRS were described.ResultsAfter screening, 51 studies representing 10,416 participants were included. Student and professional scores were investigated in 24 and 29 studies, respectively. Twenty‐one studies included educational interventions, with heterogenous follow‐up. Psychometric properties of the HC‐PAIRS were assessed in 10 studies and demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. The overall baseline mean score among all participants was 55.34 (95% CI: 53.54–57.14) (students: 56.54 [56.54–60.87]; professionals: 51.67 [49.08–54.27]). Nurses (61.99 [55.66–68.31]) and non–health care professionals (65.30 [57.33–73.28]) had the highest overall baseline mean scores, whereas chiropractors (51.69 [33.73–69.66]), MDs/PAs (52.64 [47.27–58.00]), physical therapists (53.42 [50.67–56.17]), and exercise professionals (57.36 [49.39–65.33]) had lower scores.ConclusionsThe HC‐PAIRS has been used across many disciplines in both students and professionals and demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. Professionals commonly treating back pain had lower HC‐PAIRS scores. Future research could benefit from standardization of interventions and timing of follow‐up assessments.