Does Addressing Mental Health During a Musculoskeletal Specialty Care Visit Affect Patient-rated Clinician Empathy?

Background: Unhelpful thoughts and feelings of worry or despair about symptoms account for a notable amount of the variation in musculoskeletal symptom intensity. Specialists may be best positioned to diagnose these treatable aspects of musculoskeletal illness. Musculoskeletal specialists might be concerned that addressing mental health could offend the patient, and avoidance might delay mental health diagnosis and treatment. Evidence that conversations about mental health are not associated with diminished patient experience might increase specialist confidence in the timely diagnosis and initial motivation to treat unhelpful thoughts and feelings of worry or despair.

Questions/purposes: Using transcripts of videotaped and audiotaped specialty care visits in which at least one instance of patient language indicating an unhelpful thought about symptoms or feelings of worry or despair surfaced, we asked: (1) Is clinician discussion of mental health associated with lower patient-rated clinician empathy, accounting for other factors? (2) Are clinician discussions of mental health associated with patient demographics, patient mental health measures, or specific clinicians?

Methods: Using a database of transcripts of 212 patients that were audio or video recorded for prior studies, we identified 144 transcripts in which language reflecting either an unhelpful thought or feelings of distress (worry or despair) about symptoms was detected. These were labeled mental health opportunities. Patients were invited on days when the researcher making video or audio records was available, and people were invited based on the researcher's availability, the patient's cognitive ability, and whether the patient spoke English. Exclusions were not tracked in those original studies, but few patients declined. There were 80 women and 64 men, with a mean age of 45 ± 15 years. Participants completed measures of health anxiety, catastrophic thinking, symptoms of depression, and perceived clinician empathy. Factors associated with perceived clinician empathy and clinician discussion of mental health were sought in bivariate and multivariable analyses.

Results: Greater patient-rated clinician empathy was not associated with clinician initiation of a mental health discussion (regression coefficient 0.98 [95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.1]; p = 0.65). A clinician-initiated mental health discussion was not associated with any factors.

Conclusion: The observation that a clinician-initiated mental health discussion was not associated with diminished patient ratings of clinician empathy and was independent from other factors indicates that generally, discussion of mental health does not harm patient-clinician relationship. Musculoskeletal clinicians could be the first to notice disproportionate symptoms or misconceptions and distress about symptoms, and based on the evidence from this study, they can be confident about initiating a discussion about these mental health priorities to avoid delays in diagnosis and treatment. Future studies can address the impact of training clinicians to notice unhelpful thoughts and signs of distress and discuss them with compassion in a specialty care visit; other studies might evaluate the impact of timely diagnosis of opportunities for improvement in mental health on comfort, capability, and optimal stewardship of resources.