Differences in pain, function and coping in Multidimensional Pain Inventory subgroups of chronic back pain: a one-group pretest-posttest study

Contains fulltext : 97819.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Patients with non-specific back pain are not a homogeneous group but heterogeneous with regard to their bio-psycho-social impairments. This study examined a sample of 173 highly disabled patients with chronic back pain to find out how the three subgroups based on the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) differed in their response to an inpatient pain management program. METHODS: Subgroup classification was conducted by cluster analysis using MPI subscale scores at entry into the program. At program entry and at discharge after four weeks, participants completed the MPI, the MOS Short Form-36 (SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ). Pairwise analyses of the score changes of the mentioned outcomes of the three MPI subgroups were performed using the Mann-Whitney-U-test for significance. RESULTS: Cluster analysis identified three MPI subgroups in this highly disabled sample: a dysfunctional, interpersonally distressed and an adaptive copers subgroup. The dysfunctional subgroup (29% of the sample) showed the highest level of depression in SF-36 mental health (33.4 +/- 13.9), the interpersonally distressed subgroup (35% of the sample) a modest level of depression (46.8 +/- 20.4), and the adaptive copers subgroup (32% of the sample) the lowest level of depression (57.8 +/- 19.1). Significant differences in pain reduction and improvement of mental health and coping were observed across the three MPI subgroups, i.e. the effect sizes for MPI pain reduction were: 0.84 (0.44-1.24) for the dysfunctional subgroup, 1.22 (0.86-1.58) for the adaptive copers subgroup, and 0.53 (0.24-0.81) for the interpersonally distressed subgroup (p = 0.006 for pairwise comparison). Significant score changes between subgroups concerning activities and physical functioning could not be identified. CONCLUSIONS: MPI subgroup classification showed significant differences in score changes for pain, mental health and coping. These findings underscore the importance of assessing individual differences to understand how patients adjust to chronic back pain

Health-related quality of life change in patients treated at a multidisciplinary pain clinic

Background Multidisciplinary pain management (MPM) is a generally accepted method for treating chronic pain, but heterogeneous outcome measures provide only limited conclusions concerning its effectiveness. Therefore, further studies on the effectiveness of MPM are needed to identify subgroups of patients who benefit, or do not benefit, from these interventions. Our aim was to analyse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) changes after MPM and to identify factors associated with treatment outcomes. Methods We carried out a real world observational follow-up study of chronic pain patients referred to a tertiary multidisciplinary outpatient pain clinic to describe, using the validated HRQoL instrument 15D, the HRQoL change after MPM and to identify factors associated with this change. 1,043 patients responded to the 15D HRQoL questionnaire at baseline and 12 months after the start of treatment. Background data were collected from the pre-admission questionnaire of the pain clinic. Results Fifty-three percent of the patients reported a clinically important improvement and, of these, 81% had a major improvement. Thirty-five percent reported a clinically important deterioration, and 12% had no change in HRQoL. Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that major improvement was positively associated with shorter duration of pain (Peer reviewe

International Olympic Committee consensus statement on pain management in elite athletes

Pain is a common problem among elite athletes and is frequently associated with sport injury. Both pain and injury interfere with the performance of elite athletes. There are currently no evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines for the management of pain in elite athletes. Typically, pain management consists of the provision of analgesics, rest and physical therapy. More appropriately, a treatment strategy should address all contributors to pain including underlying pathophysiology, biomechanical abnormalities and psychosocial issues, and should employ therapies providing optimal benefit and minimal harm. To advance the development of a more standardised, evidence-informed approach to pain management in elite athletes, an IOC Consensus Group critically evaluated the current state of the science and practice of pain management in sport and prepared recommendations for a more unified approach to this important topic

Canadian Occupational Performance Measure performance scale: validity and responsiveness in chronic pain.

The construct validity and construct responsiveness of the performance scale of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was measured in 87 newly admitted patients with chronic pain attending an outpatient rehabilitation clinic. At admission and after 12 wk, patients completed a COPM interview, the Pain Disability Index (PDI), and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36). We determined the construct validity of the COPM by correlations between the COPM performance scale (COPM-P), the PDI, and the RAND-36 at admission. Construct responsiveness was assessed by calculating the correlations between the change scores (n = 57). The COPM-P did not significantly correlate with the PDI (r = 0.260) or with any subscale of the RAND-36 (r = 0.007 to 0.248). Only a moderate correlation was found between change scores of the COPM-P and PDI (r = 0.380) and weak to moderate correlations were found between change scores of the COPM-P and the RAND-36 (r = 0.031 to 0.388), with the higher correlations for the physical functioning, social functioning, and role limitations (physical) subscales. In patients with chronic pain attending our rehabilitation program, the COPM-P measures something different than the RAND-36 or PDI. Therefore, construct validity of the COPM-P was not confirmed by our data. We were not able to find support for the COPM-P to detect changes in occupational performance