| 1. |
- Costa, Nathalia, et al.
(författare)
-
A Definition of "Flare" in Low Back Pain: A Multiphase Process Involving Perspectives of Individuals With Low Back Pain and Expert Consensus
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Pain. - : CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE. - 1526-5900 .- 1528-8447. ; 20:11, s. 1267-1275
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Low back pain (LBP) varies over time. Consumers, clinicians, and researchers use various terms to describe LBP fluctuations, such as episodes, recurrences and flares. Although "flare" is use commonly, there is no consensus on how it is defined. This study aimed to obtain consensus for a LBP flare definition using a mixed-method approach. Step 1 involved the derivation of a preliminary candidate flare definition based on thematic analysis of views of 130 consumers in consultation with an expert consumer writer. In step 2, a workshop was conducted to incorporate perspectives of 19 LBP experts into the preliminary flare definition, which resulted in 2 alternative LBP flare definitions. Step 3 refined the definition using a 2-round Delphi consensus with 50 experts in musculoskeletal conditions. The definition favored by experts was further tested with 16 individuals with LBP in step 4, using the definition in three scenarios. This multiphase study produced a definition of LBP flare that distinguishes it from other LBP fluctuations, represents consumers views, involves expert consensus, and is understandable by consumers in clinical and research contexts: "A flare-up is a worsening of your condition that lasts from hours to weeks that is difficult to tolerate and generally impacts your usual activities and/or emotions." Perspective: A multiphase process, incorporating consumers views and expert consensus, produced a definition of LBP flare that distinguishes it from other LBP fluctuations. (C) 2019 by the American Pain Society
|
|
| 2. |
- Abbott, Allan, 1978-, et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of implementing a best practice primary healthcare model for low back pain (BetterBack) compared with current routine care in the Swedish context : an internal pilot study informed protocol for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 trial
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 8:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem commonly requiring healthcare. In Sweden, there is a call from healthcare practitioners (HCPs) for the development, implementation and evaluation of a best practice primary healthcare model for LBP.Aims (1) To improve and understand the mechanisms underlying changes in HCP confidence, attitudes and beliefs for providing best practice coherent primary healthcare for patients with LBP; (2) to improve and understand the mechanisms underlying illness beliefs, self-care enablement, pain, disability and quality of life in patients with LBP; and (3) to evaluate a multifaceted and sustained implementation strategy and the cost-effectiveness of the BetterBack☺ model of care (MOC) for LBP from the perspective of the Swedish primary healthcare context.Methods This study is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 trial testing the hypothesised superiority of the BetterBack☺ MOC compared with current routine care. The trial involves simultaneous testing of MOC effects at the HCP, patient and implementation process levels. This involves a prospective cohort study investigating implementation at the HCP level and a patient-blinded, pragmatic, cluster, randomised controlled trial with longitudinal follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 months post baseline for effectiveness at the patient level. A parallel process and economic analysis from a healthcare sector perspective will also be performed. Patients will be allocated to routine care (control group) or the BetterBack☺ MOC (intervention group) according to a stepped cluster dogleg structure with two assessments in routine care. Experimental conditions will be compared and causal mediation analysis investigated. Qualitative HCP and patient experiences of the BetterBack☺ MOC will also be investigated.Dissemination The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. Further national dissemination and implementation in Sweden and associated national quality register data collection are potential future developments of the project.
|
|
| 3. |
- Enthoven, Paul, et al.
(författare)
-
DO PAIN CHARACTERISTICS GUIDE SELECTION FOR MULTIMODAL PAIN REHABILITATION?
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - : FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION. - 1650-1977 .- 1651-2081. ; 49:2, s. 161-169
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To determine whether self-reported pain measures are associated with selection for multimodal or multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MMR) and whether this selection is influenced by sex. Design: Cross-sectional cohort study. Subjects: A total of 1,226 women and 464 men with chronic pain conditions from 2 university hospitals. Methods: Drawing from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP), data on pain, psychological symptoms, function, health, and activity/participation were collected. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate association of pain measures with selection for MMR (no/yes) after multidisciplinary assessment. Covariates were: age, educational level, anxiety, depression, working status, and several pain measures. Results: High pain intensity in the previous week (odds ratio (OR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.99) and high pain severity (Multidimensional Pain Inventory) (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.74-0.95) were negatively associated with selection for MMR, whereas higher number of pain quadrants was positively associated with selection for MMR. Similar results were obtained for women, but none of the measures was predictive for men. Conclusion: This practice-based study showed that higher scores on self-reported pain were not associated with selection for MMR, and in women there was a negative association for higher pain intensity and pain severity. Thus, other factors than pain determine whether patients are selected for MMR.
|
|
| 4. |
- Enthoven, Paul, et al.
(författare)
-
Validity, internal consistency and self-rated change of the patient enablement instrument in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1650-1977 .- 1651-2081. ; 51:8, s. 587-597
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Patient enablement reflects patient's understanding of and coping with illness. The aim of this study was to investigate the content validity, construct validity, internal consistency and selfrated change (SRC) of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) in patients with whiplash-associated disorders, cervical radiculopathy and mixed chronic pain treated in different settings.Design: Psychometric analyses. Participants: Patients with disabling non-malignant chronic musculoskeletal pain.Methods: Participants answered questionnaires on disability (Neck Disability Index (NDI) or Functional Rating Index (FRI)), anxiety/depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS) and general health (EuroQol; EQ-5D). Content validity, construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis), internal consistency and cut-off for SRC were investigated for the PEI after treatment. The SRC value was the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve optimal cut-off point.Results: After treatment all items were completed by 516 patients (mean standard deviation (SD) age 45.1 years (SD 10.1), women 75% (n=385)). The 1-factor PEI model had approximate fit to the data. The internal consistency Cronbach's alpha was between 0.878 and 0.929 for the 3 groups. Correlations between the PEI and the NDI/FRI, HADS and EQ-5D were fair to good. The SRCROC for whiplash-associated disorders, cervical radiculopathy and mixed chronic pain groups was 5, 6 and 4 points in the PEI, respectively.Conclusion: The PEI showed fair content validity, construct validity and internal consistency. However, the scale needs further development to improve measurement of change.
|
|
| 5. |
- Fors, Maria, 1987-, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of pre-surgery physiotherapy on walking ability and lower extremity strength in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorder : Secondary outcomes of the PREPARE randomised controlled trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. - : BioMed Central. - 1471-2474. ; 20:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundDegenerative lumbar spine disorders are common among musculoskeletal disorders. When disabling pain and radiculopathy persists after adequate course of rehabilitation and imaging confirms compressive pathology, surgical decompression is indicated. Prehabilitation aiming to augment functional capacity pre-surgery may improve physical function and activity levels pre and post-surgery. This study aims to evaluate the effect and dose-response of pre-surgery physiotherapy on quadriceps femoris strength and walking ability in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders compared to waiting-list controls and their association with postoperative physical activity level.MethodIn this single blinded, 2-arm randomised controlled trial, 197 patients were consecutively recruited. Inclusion criteria were: MRI confirmed diagnosis and scheduled for surgery due to disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis, ages 25-80 years. Patients were randomised to 9 weeks of pre-surgery physiotherapy or to waiting-list. Patient reported physical activity level, walking ability according to Oswestry Disability Index item 4, walking distance according to the SWESPINE national register and physical outcome measures including the timed ten-meter walk test, maximum voluntary isometric quadriceps femoris muscle strength, patient-rated were collected at baseline and follow-up. Parametric or non-parametric within and between group comparisons as well as multivariate regression was performed.ResultsPatients who received pre-surgery physiotherapy significantly improved in all variables from baseline to follow-up (p < 0.001 – p < 0.05) and in comparison to waiting-list controls (p < 0.001 – p < 0.028). Patients adhering to ≥12 treatment sessions significantly improved in all variables (p < 0.001 – p < 0.032) and those receiving 0-11 treatment session in only normal walking speed (p0.035) but there were no significant differences when comparing dosages. Physical outcome measures after pre-surgery physiotherapy together significantly explain 27.5% of the variation in physical activity level 1 year after surgery with pre-surgery physical activity level having a significant multivariate association.ConclusionPre-surgery physiotherapy increased walking ability and lower extremity strength in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders compared to waiting-list controls. A clear treatment dose-response response relationship was not found. These results implicate that pre-surgery physiotherapy can influence functional capacity before surgical treatment and has moderate associations with maintained postoperative physical activity levels mostly explained by physical activity level pre-surgery.Trial registrationNCT02454400. Trial registration date: August 31st 2015, retrospectively registered.
|
|
| 6. |
- Gerdle, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
The importance of emotional distress, cognitive behavioural factors and pain for life impact at baseline and for outcomes after rehabilitation - a SQRP study of more than 20,000 chronic pain patients
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Pain. - : Walter de Gruyter GmbH. - 1877-8860 .- 1877-8879. ; 19:4, s. 693-711
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and aims Although literature concerning chronic pain patients indicates that cognitive behavioural variables, specifically acceptance and fear of movement/(re)injury, are related to life impact, the relative roles of these factors in relation to pain characteristics (e.g. intensity and spreading) and emotional distress are unclear. Moreover, how these variables affect rehabilitation outcomes in different subgroups is insufficiently understood. This study has two aims: (1) to investigate how pain, cognitive behavioural, and emotional distress variables intercorrelate and whether these variables can regress aspects of life impact and (2) to analyse whether these variables can be used to identify clinically meaningful subgroups at baseline and which subgroups benefit most from multimodal rehabilitation programs (MMRP) immediately after and at 12-month follow-up. Methods Pain aspects, background variables, psychological distress, cognitive behavioural variables, and two life impact variables were obtained from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP) for chronic pain patients. These data were analysed mainly using advanced multivariate methods. Results The study includes 22,406 chronic pain patients. Many variables, including acceptance variables, showed important contributions to the variation in clinical presentations and in life impacts. Based on the statistically important variables considering the clinical presentation, three clusters/subgroups of patients were identified at baseline; from the worst clinical situation to the relatively good situation. These clusters showed significant differences in outcomes after participating in MMRP; the subgroup with the worst situation at baseline showed the most significant improvements. Conclusions Pain intensity/severity, emotional distress, acceptance, and life impacts were important for the clinical presentation and were used to identify three clusters with marked differences at baseline (i.e. before MMRP). Life impacts showed complex relationships with acceptance, pain intensity/severity, and emotional distress. The most significant improvements after MMRP were seen in the subgroup with the lowest level of functioning before treatment, indicating that patients with complex problems should be offered MMRP. Implications This study emphasizes the need to adopt a biopsychosocial perspective when assessing patients with chronic pain. Patients with chronic pain referred to specialist clinics are not homogenous in their clinical presentation. Instead we identified three distinct subgroups of patients. The outcomes of MMRP appears to be related to the clinical presentation. Thus, patients with the most severe clinical presentation show the most prominent improvements. However, even though this group of patients improve they still after MMRP show a complex situation and there is thus a need for optimizing the content of MMRP for these patients. The subgroup of patients with a relatively good situation with respect to pain, psychological distress, coping and life impact only showed minor improvements after MMRP. Hence, there is a need to develop other complex interventions for them.
|
|
| 7. |
- Gerdle, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
Weak outcome predictors of multimodal rehabilitation at one-year follow-up in patients with chronic pain-a practice based evidence study from two SQRP centres.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. - : BioMed Central. - 1471-2474. ; 17:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: For patients with chronic pain, the heterogeneity of clinical presentations makes it difficult to identify patients who would benefit from multimodal rehabilitation programs (MMRP). Yet, there is limited knowledge regarding the predictors of MMRP's outcomes. This study identifies predictors of outcome of MMRPs at a 12-month follow-up (FU-12) based on data from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP).METHODS: Patients with chronic pain from two clinical departments in Sweden completed the SQRP questionnaires-background, pain characteristics, psychological symptoms, function, activity/participation, health and quality of life-on three occasions: 1) during their first visit; 2) immediately after the completion of their MMRP; and 3) 12 months after completing the MMRP (n = 227). During the FU-12, the patients also retrospectively reported their global impressions of any changes in their perception of pain and their ability to handle their life situation in general.RESULTS: Significant improvements were found for pain, psychological symptoms, activity/participation, health, and quality of life aspects with low/medium strong effects. A general pattern was observed from the analyses of the changes from baseline to FU-12; the largest improvements in outcomes were significantly associated with poor situations according to their respective baseline scores. Although significant regressors of the investigated outcomes were found, the significant predictors were weak and explained a minor part of the variation in outcomes (15-25%). At the FU-12, 53.6% of the patients reported that their pain had decreased and 80.1% reported that their life situation in general had improved. These improvements were associated with high education, low pain intensity, high health level, and work importance (only pain perception). The explained variations were low (9-11%).CONCLUSIONS: Representing patients in real-world clinical settings, this study confirmed systematic reviews that outcomes of MMRP are associated with broad positive effects. A mix of background and baseline variables influenced the outcomes investigated, but the explained variations in outcomes were low. There is still a need to develop standardized and relatively simple outcomes that can be used to evaluate MMRP in trials, in clinical evaluations at group level, and for individual patients.
|
|
| 8. |
- Gerdle, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
Who benefits from multimodal rehabilitation - an exploration of pain, psychological distress, and life impacts in over 35,000 chronic pain patients identified in the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Pain Research. - : DOVE Medical Press Ltd.. - 1178-7090. ; 12, s. 891-908
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Chronic pain patients frequently suffer from psychological symptoms. There is no consensus concerning the prevalence of severe anxiety and depressive symptoms and the strength of the associations between pain intensity and psychological distress. Although an important aspect of the clinical picture is understanding how the pain condition impacts life, little is known about the relative importance of pain and psychological symptoms for individual's life impact. The aims of this study were to identify subgroups of pain patients; to analyze if pain, psychological distress, and life impact variables influence subgrouping; and to investigate how patients in the subgroups benefit from treatments.Methods: Background variables, pain aspects (intensity/severity and spreading), psychological distress (depressive and anxiety symptoms), and two life impact variables (pain interference and perceived life control) were obtained from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation for chronic pain patients and analyzed mainly using advanced multivariate methods.Results: Based on >35,000 patients, 35%-40% had severe anxiety or depressive symptoms. Severe psychological distress was associated with being born outside Europe (21%-24% vs 6%-8% in the category without psychological distress) and low education level (20.7%-20.8% vs 26%-27% in the category without psychological distress). Dose relationships existed between the two psychological distress variables and pain aspects, but the explained variances were generally low. Pain intensity/severity and the two psychological distress variables were significantly associated (R2=0.40-0.48; P>0.001) with the two life impact variables (pain interference and life control). Two subgroups of patients were identified at baseline (subgroup 1: n=15,901-16,119; subgroup 2: n=20,690-20,981) and the subgroup with the worst situation regarding all variables participated less in an MMRP (51% vs 58%, P<0.001) but showed the largest improvements in outcomes.Conclusion: The results emphasize the need to assess both pain and psychological distress and not take for granted that pain involves high psychological stress in the individual case. Not all patients benefit from MMRP. A better matching between common clinical pictures and the content of MMRPs may help improve results. We only partly found support for treatment resistance in patients with psychological distress burden.
|
|
| 9. |
- Grooten, Wilhelmus Johannes Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS-aspects of interrater agreement
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Diagnostic and Prognostic Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2397-7523. ; 3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Many studies have been performed to identify important prognostic factors for outcomes after rehabilitation of patients with chronic pain, and there is a need to synthesize them through systematic review. In this process, it is important to assess the study quality and risk of bias. The "Quality In Prognosis Studies" (QUIPS) tool has been developed for this purpose and consists of several prompting items categorized into six domains, and each domain is judged on a three-grade scale (low, moderate or high risk of bias). The aim of the present study was to determine the interrater agreement of the risk of bias assessment in prognostic studies of patients with chronic pain using QUIPS and to elaborate on the use of this instrument.Methods: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of prognostic factors for long-term outcomes after multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic pain. Two researchers rated the risk of bias in 43 published papers in two rounds (15 and 28 papers, respectively). The interrater agreement and Cohen's quadratic weighted kappa coefficient (κ) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated in all domains and separately for the first and second rounds.Results: The raters agreed in 61% of the domains (157 out of 258), with similar interrater agreement in the first (59%, 53/90) and second rounds (62%, 104/168). The overall weighted kappa coefficient (kappa for all domains and all papers) was weak: κ = 0.475 (95%CI = 0.358-0.601). A "minimal agreement" between the raters was found in the first round, κ = 0.323 (95%CI = 0.129-0.517), but increased to "weak agreement" in the second round, κ = 0.536 (95%CI = 0.390-0.682).Conclusion: Despite a relatively low interrater agreement, QUIPS proved to be a useful tool in assessing the risk of bias when performing a meta-analysis of prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation, since it demands of raters to discuss and investigate important aspects of study quality. Some items were particularly hard to differentiate in-between, and a learning phase was required to increase the interrater agreement. This paper highlights several aspects of the tool that should be kept in mind when rating the risk of bias in prognostic studies, and provides some suggestions on common pitfalls to avoid during this process.Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42016025339; registered 05 February 2016.
|
|
| 10. |
- Lindbäck, Yvonne, 1967-, et al.
(författare)
-
Altered somatosensory profile according to quantitative sensory testing in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders scheduled for surgery
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. - : BIOMED CENTRAL LTD. - 1471-2474. ; 18
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Somatosensory profiling in affected and non-affected body regions can strengthen our insight regarding the underlying pain mechanisms, which can be valuable in treatment decision making and to improve outcomes, in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders pre-surgery. The aim was to describe somatosensory profiles in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders, to identify the proportion with altered somatosensory profile, and to analyze demographic characteristics, self-reported function, pain, and health pre- and 3 months post-surgery. Methods: In this prospective cohort study in a Spine Clinic, 105 patients scheduled for surgery for spinal stenosis, disc herniation, degenerative disc disease, or spondylolisthesis were consecutively recruited. Exclusion criteria were; indication for acute surgery or previous surgery at the same spinal level or severe grade of pathology. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) and self-reported function, pain, and health was measured pre- and 3 months post-surgery. The somatosensory profile included cold detection threshold, warmth detection threshold, cold pain threshold, heat pain threshold and pressure pain threshold in affected and non-affected body regions. Results: On a group level, the patients somatosensory profiles were within the 95% confidence interval (CI) from normative reference data means. On an individual level, an altered somatosensory profile was defined as having two or more body regions (including a non-affected region) with QST values outside of normal ranges for reference data. The 23 patients (22%) with altered somatosensory profiles, with mostly loss of function, were older (P = 0.031), more often female (P = 0.005), had higher back and leg pain (P = 0.016, 0.020), lower mental health component summary score (SF 36 MCS) (P = 0.004) and larger pain distribution (P = 0.047), compared to others in the cohort. Post-surgery there was a tendency to worse pain, function and health in the group with altered somatosensory profile pre-surgery. Conclusions: On a group level, patients with degenerative lumbar spine disorders scheduled for surgery were within normal range for the QST measurements compared to reference values. On an individual level, an altered somatosensory profile outside of normal range in both affected and non-affected body regions occurred in 22% of patients, which may indicate disturbed somatosensory function. Those patients had mostly loss of sensory function and had worse self-reported outcome pre-surgery, compared to the rest of the cohort. Future prospective studies are needed to further examine whether these dimensions can be useful in predicting post-surgery outcome and guide need of additional treatments.
|
|
