Participants' unspoken thoughts and feelings negatively influence the therapeutic alliance; a qualitative study in a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation setting

PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore factors that influence participants' perceptions of the therapeutic alliance with healthcare professionals; their participation in the alliance; and their commitment to treatment in a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative research-design was used and 26 participants in a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program were interviewed in-depth. RESULTS: Initially, participants reported to be satisfied with their healthcare professionals. After deeper reflection on the therapeutic alliance, several unspoken thoughts and feelings and relational ruptures emerged. Almost all participants mentioned a history of disappointing and fragmented healthcare, and they reported on how this affected their cognitions, perceptions, and beliefs about the current program. Participants felt insufficiently empowered to voice their concerns and regularly chose to avoid confrontation by not discussing their feelings. They felt a lack of ownership of their problems and did not experience the program as person-centered. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors were found that negatively influence the quality of therapeutic alliance (agreement on bond) and efficacy of the treatment plan (agreement on goals and tasks). To improve outcomes of pain rehabilitation, healthcare professionals should systematically take into account the perceptions and needs of participants, and focus more on personalized collaboration throughout the program offered.Implications for rehabilitationDifferences in perceptions and experiences of pain, together with differences in beliefs about the causes of pain, negatively influence the therapeutic alliance.When participants and healthcare professionals operate from different paradigms, it is important that they negotiate these differences.From the perspective of participants, a clear-cut organization of healthcare that encourages collaboration is required.It is important to focus on personalized collaboration from the start and during treatment, and to recognize and discuss disagreement on diagnosis and treatment plans.During this collaboration, healthcare professionals should systematically take into account the perceptions and needs of the participants

Validity of the Central Sensitization Inventory to Address Human Assumed Central Sensitization:Newly Proposed Clinically Relevant Values and Associations

Central sensitization cannot be directly demonstrated in humans and thus a gold standard is missing. Therefore, we used human assumed central sensitization (HACS) when associated with humans. The central sensitization inventory (CSI) is a screening questionnaire for addressing symptoms that are associated with HACS. This cross-sectional study compared patients with chronic pain and at least one central sensitivity syndrome with healthy, pain-free controls via ROC analyses. Analyses were performed for all participants together and for each sex separately. Regression analyses were performed on patients with chronic pain with and without central sensitivity syndromes. Based on 1730 patients and 250 healthy controls, cutoff values for the CSI for the total group were established at 30 points: women: 33 points; men: 25 points. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify possible predictors for the CSI score in 2890 patients with chronic pain. The CSI score is associated with all independent factors and has a low association with pain severity in women and a low association with pain severity, age, and body mass index in men. The newly established CSI cutoff values are lower than in previous studies and different per sex, which might be of clinical relevance in daily practice and importance in research.</p

Dosage of pain rehabilitation programmes for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain:a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE: To analyse the effects of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programmes with different dosages; care as usual versus short form. METHODS: A single blinded, two armed, randomised controlled trial, with non-inferiority design was performed. All patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain referred to an outpatient multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme were eligible for this study. Only dosage differed, content was similar. The difference on Pain Disability Index was the primary outcome measure. Four points difference on Pain Disability Index was applied as a non-inferiority margin. Treatment effects within groups were expressed in standardised mean difference and effect sizes were calculated between the groups. RESULTS: Because care as usual was frequently extended, the difference in dosage between groups was limited. The study was stopped prematurely because of an a-priori stopping rule. Interim analyses are presented. Both groups (care as usual n = 58, short form n = 54) improved significantly (mean Pain Disability Index change care as usual: -10.8; short form: -8.3). Mean difference between groups was 2.5 points (95% confidence interval was -2.2 to 7.3). Effect size between groups was 0.2. CONCLUSIONS: The 95% confidence interval for the difference in mean pain disability reduction exceeded the upper limit of the non-inferiority margin. The results of the primary analyses of this trial are, therefore, inconclusive. Ancillary analyses revealed that programme dosage was not associated with differences in the disability outcomes. Implications for rehabilitation Optimum dosage of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs is unknown and scarcely studied. This study is the first to analyse dosage as primary aim. Although results are inconclusive, they also suggest that differences in dosage may not automatically lead to differences in effects. Further research is needed to analyse what dosage works for whom; to detect optimum effective and cost-effective dosage of pain rehabilitation programmes

Symptom increase following a functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low back pain:An explorative study of safety

Introduction: This study was performed to study intensity and duration of symptom increase following an FCE and to explore safety of an FCE. Methods: Included were 92 patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), mean age 38.5 years, mean self-reported disability 12.5 (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). All patients underwent an FCE. Symptom increase was measured with a 2-item questionnaire. Operational definition for safety: no formal complaint filed and symptom increase to occur only temporarily. Results: No formal complaints were filed (n=92). In total, 54 patients returned the questionnaire (59%; 'responders'). Of the responders, 76% reported increased symptom intensity after an FCE, ranging from 'little increase' to 'severe increase'. Symptoms of all responders returned to pre-FCE level. Duration of symptom increase of the responders ranged from 1 day to 3 weeks. Symptom increase resided to pre-FCE level within 1 week in 93% of the responders. Symptom increase was weakly related to self-reported disability (r=0.38, p <0.05). Except for gender, differences between responders and non-responders were non-significant. Conclusion: A temporary increase in symptom intensity following an FCE is common. Within the operational definitions of safety used in this study, assessment of functional capacity of patients with CLBP appears safe

Test-Retest Reliability and Construct Validity of the Dutch Injustice Experience Questionnaire in Patients with Chronic Pain

Perceived injustice is defined as an appraisal of the severity of loss, blame, a sense of unfairness, and irreparability of loss related to pain. It has a negative impact on health and is associated with poor recovery outcomes in pain rehabilitation programs. In order to measure, the Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ) was developed, but the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the IEQ had not been studied. This study aimed to investigate construct validity and test-retest reliability of the Dutch IEQ. Included patients were 281 adults with multi-factorial chronic pain (> 3 months) from two health care settings. All patients filled out questionnaires that measured perceived injustice, pain characteristics, central sensitization, disability, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, depression, anxiety, PTSD symptoms, anger, and perceived illness threat. Thirteen hypotheses on the strength of the correlations between the IEQ and the other measurements were formulated a priori. Correlations were calculated using Pearson correlation coefficients. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the IEQ was assessed 2 weeks later and intra-class correlations were computed. All measurements, apart from pain duration and number of pain sites, were significantly correlated with the IEQ. Eleven out of 13 hypotheses were confirmed. Intra-class correlation between the first and second assessments of the IEQ was 0.87. The results support the construct validity of the Dutch IEQ and suggest that test-retest reliability is good