Assessing the Role of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in the Management of Chronic Nonspecific Back Pain

Purpose: The aim of this study is to provide a narrative review of the current state of knowledge of the role of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in the management of chronic nonspecific back pain. Methods: A literature search on all studies published up until July 2012 (PubMed and PsycINFO) was performed. The search string consisted of 4 steps: cognitive behavioral therapy/treatment/management/modification/intervention, chronic, back pain (MeSH term) or low back pain (MeSH term), and randomized controlled trial (MeSH term). The conclusions are based on the results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews of RCTs. Interventions were not required to be pure CBT interventions, but were required to include both cognitive and behavioral components. Results: The search yielded 108 studies, with 46 included in the analysis. Eligible intervention studies were categorized as CBT compared to wait-list controls/treatment as usual, physical treatments/exercise, information/education, biofeedback, operant behavioral treatment, lumbar spinal fusion surgery, and relaxation training. The results showed that CBT is a beneficial treatment for chronic back pain on a wide range of relevant variables, especially when compared to wait-list controls/treatment as usual. With regards to the other comparison treatments, results were mixed and inconclusive. Conclusion: The results of this review suggest that CBT is a beneficial treatment for chronic nonspecific back pain, leading to improvements in a wide range of relevant cognitive, behavioral and physical variables. This is especially evident when CBT is compared to treatment as usual or wait-list controls, but mixed and inconclusive when compared with various other treatments. Multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary interventions that integrate CBT with other approaches may represent the future direction of management of chronic back pain, with treatments modified for specific circumstances and stakeholders. There is a need for future intervention studies to be specific in their use of cognitive behavioral elements, in order for results to be comparable

Are 2 Questions Enough to Screen for Depression and Anxiety in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?

Study Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. To examine the sensitivity of 2 single-item questions compared with 2 longer questionnaires for screening depression and anxiety among patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Summary of Background Data. Psychosocial factors are frequently identified as risk factors for developing CLBP and as predictors for treatment, and questionnaires are often used to screen for this. Shorter instruments may be easier to use in clinical practice settings. Methods. A total of 564 patients with 2 to 10 months of at least 50% sickness absence due to nonspecific low back pain were assessed for depression and anxiety with the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Single-item questions for depression and anxiety from the Subjective Health Complaint Inventory and 2 longer questionnaires, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Hopkins Symptom Checklist–25, were compared with MINI results, considered the “gold standard” in this study. Sensitivity and specificity of single-item and longer questionnaires and receiver operating characteristic curves were compared. Results. According to MINI, the prevalence of anxiety disorders was 12% whereas that of depressive disorders was 4%. The screening questions showed 95% sensitivity and 56% specificity for depressive disorders and 68% sensitivity and 85% specificity for anxiety disorders. The longer questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, showed 91% sensitivity and 85% specificity for depressive disorders and 58% sensitivity and 83% specificity for anxiety disorders. Hopkins Symptom Checklist–25 showed 86% sensitivity and 74% specificity for depressive disorders and 67% sensitivity and 87% specificity for anxiety disorders. For 3 of the anxiety disorders and 2 of the depressive disorders, a perfect sensitivity was found between the screening questions and MINI. Conclusions. A single-item screening question was sensitive for depression but less sensitive for anxiety. The screening questions further performed equal to 2 widely used questionnaires. Validation of these results in other populations and compared with other short-item screeners is needed. Level of Evidence:

Fatigue and Depression in Sick-Listed Chronic Low Back Pain Patients

Objective: The relationship between fatigue and pain has been investigated previously, but little is known about the prevalence of substantial fatigue in patients sick-listed for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and about how fatigue is associated with depression, pain, and long-term disability. The aims of the study were to examine the prevalence of substantial fatigue; associations between fatigue, depression, and pain; and whether fatigue predicted long-term disability. Methods: Five hundred sixty-nine patients participating in a randomized controlled trial and sick-listed 2–10 months for LBP were included in the study. Cross-sectional analyses were conducted to investigate the prevalence and independent associations between fatigue, depression, pain, and disability, while longitudinal analyses were done to investigate the association between fatigue and long-term disability. Results: The prevalence of substantial fatigue was 69.7%. Women reported significantly more fatigue than men (t = −3.6, df = 551; P < .001). Those with substantial fatigue had higher pain intensity (t = −3.3, df = 534; P = 0.01), more depressive symptoms (t = −10.9, df = 454; P < 0.001), and more disability (t = −7.6, df = 539; P < 0.001) than those without substantial fatigue. Musculoskeletal pain and depression were independently associated with substantial fatigue. In the longitudinal analyses, fatigue predicted long-term disability at 3, 6, and 12 months' follow-up. After pain and depression were controlled for, fatigue remained a significant predictor of disability at 6 months' follow-up. Conclusions: The vast majority of the sick-listed CLBP patients reported substantial fatigue. Those with substantial fatigue had more pain and depressive symptoms and a significant risk of reporting more disability at 3, 6, and 12 months. Substantial fatigue is disabling in itself but also involves a risk of developing chronic fatigue syndrome and long-term disability

Protocol for the SEED-Trial: Supported Employment and Preventing Early Disability

Early withdrawal or exclusion from the labor market leads to significant personal and societal costs. In Norway, the increasing numbers of young adults receiving disability pension is a growing problem. While a large body of research demonstrates positive effects of Supported Employment (SE) in patients with severe mental illness, no studies have yet investigated the effectiveness of SE in young adults with a range of social and health conditions who are receiving benefits

Expectations, perceptions, and physiotherapy predict prolonged sick leave in subacute low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Brief intervention programs for subacute low back pain (LBP) result in significant reduction of sick leave compared to treatment as usual. Although effective, a substantial proportion of the patients do not return to work. This study investigates predictors of return to work in LBP patients participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing a brief intervention program (BI) with BI and physical exercise.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Predictors for not returning to work was examined in 246 patients sick listed 8-12 weeks for low back pain. The patients had participated in a randomized controlled trial, with BI (n = 122) and BI + physical exercise (n = 124). There were no significant differences between the two intervention groups on return to work. The groups were therefore merged in the analyses of predictors. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors for non return to work at 3, 12, and 24 months of follow-up.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At 3 months of follow-up, the strongest predictors for not returning to work were pain intensity while resting (OR = 5.6; CI = 1.7-19), the perception of constant back strain when working (OR = 4.1; CI = 1.5-12), negative expectations for return to work (OR = 4.2; CI = 1.7-10), and having been to a physiotherapist prior to participation in the trial (OR = 3.3; CI = 1.3-8.3). At 12 months, perceived reduced ability to walk far due to the complaints (OR = 2.6; CI = 1.3-5.4), pain during activities (OR = 2.4; CI = 1.1-5.1), and having been to a physiotherapist prior to participation in the trial (OR = 2.1; CI = 1.1-4.3) were the strongest predictors for non return to work. At 24 months age below 41 years (OR = 2.9; CI = 1.4-6.0) was the only significant predictor for non return to work.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>It appears that return to work is highly dependant on individual and cognitive factors. Patients not returning to work after the interventions were characterized by negative expectations, perceptions about pain and disability, and previous physiotherapy treatment. This is the first study reporting that previous treatment by physiotherapists is a risk factor for long-term sick leave. This has not been reported before and is an interesting finding that deserves more scrutiny.</p

Protocol for the Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements (CINS) trial: A randomized controlled multicenter trial of a brief intervention (BI) versus a BI plus cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) versus nutritional supplements for patients with long-lasting muscle and back pain

Background: Brief intervention programs are clinically beneficial, and cost efficient treatments for low back pain, when offered at 8-12 weeks, compared with treatment as usual. However, about 30% of the patients do not return to work. The European Guidelines for treatment of chronic low back pain recommends Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), but conclude that further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of CBT for chronic low back pain. Methods/Design: The aim of the multicenter CINS trial (Cognitive Interventions and Nutritional Supplements) is to compare the effectiveness of 4 different interventions; Brief Intervention, Brief Intervention and CBT, Brief Intervention and nutritional supplements of seal oil, and Brief Intervention and nutritional supplements of soy oil. All participants will be randomly assigned to the interventions. The nutritional supplements will be tested in a double blind design. 400 patients will be recruited from a population of chronic low back pain patients that have been sick listed for 2-10 months. Four outpatient clinics, located in different parts of Norway, will participate in recruitment and treatment of the patients. The Brief Intervention is a one session cognitive, clinical examination program based on a non-injury model, where return to normal activity and work is the main goal, and is followed by two booster sessions. The CBT is a tailored treatment involving 7 sessions, following a detailed manual. The nutritional supplements consist of a dosage of 10 grams of either soy or seal oil (capsules) per day for 3 months, administered in a double blind design. All patients will be followed up with questionnaires after 3, 6 and 12 months, while sick leave data will be collected up to at least 24 months after randomization. The primary outcome of the study is sick leave and will be based on register data from the National Insurance Administration. Secondary outcomes include self-reported data on disability, pain, and psychological variables. Conclusions: To our knowledge, the CINS trial will be the largest, randomized trial of psychological and nutritional interventions for chronic low back pain patients to date. It will provide important information regarding the effectiveness of CBT and seal oil for chronic low back pain patients

Protocol for the SEED-trial: Supported Employment and preventing Early Disability

Background: Early withdrawal or exclusion from the labor market leads to significant personal and societal costs. In Norway, the increasing numbers of young adults receiving disability pension is a growing problem. While a large body of research demonstrates positive effects of Supported Employment (SE) in patients with severe mental illness, no studies have yet investigated the effectiveness of SE in young adults with a range of social and health conditions who are receiving benefits. Methods/design: The SEED-trial is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing traditional vocational rehabilitation (TVR) to SE in 124 unemployed individuals between the ages of 18-29 who are receiving benefits due to various social- or health-related problems. The primary outcome is labor market participation during the first year after enrollment. Secondary outcomes include physical and mental health, health behaviors, and well-being, collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A cost-benefit analysis will also be conducted. Discussion: The SEED-trial is the first RCT to compare SE to TVR in this important and vulnerable group, at risk of being excluded from working life at an early age

Chronic fatigue syndromes: real illnesses that people can recover from

The ‘Oslo Chronic Fatigue Consortium’ consists of researchers and clinicians who question the current narrative that chronic fatigue syndromes, including post-covid conditions, are incurable diseases. Instead, we propose an alternative view, based on research, which offers more hope to patients. Whilst we regard the symptoms of these conditions as real, we propose that they are more likely to reflect the brain's response to a range of biological, psychological, and social factors, rather than a specific disease process. Possible causes include persistent activation of the neurobiological stress response, accompanied by associated changes in immunological, hormonal, cognitive and behavioural domains. We further propose that the symptoms are more likely to persist if they are perceived as threatening, and all activities that are perceived to worsen them are avoided. We also question the idea that the best way to cope with the illness is by prolonged rest, social isolation, and sensory deprivation. Instead, we propose that recovery is often possible if patients are helped to adopt a less threatening understanding of their symptoms and are supported in a gradual return to normal activities. Finally, we call for a much more open and constructive dialogue about these conditions. This dialogue should include a wider range of views, including those of patients who have recovered from them