Dataset Information

Longitudinal outcome evaluations of Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment programmes for patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Although Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment (IMPT) programmes share a biopsychosocial approach to increase the wellbeing of patients with chronic pain, substantial variation in content and duration have been reported. In addition, it is unclear to what extent any favourable health outcomes are maintained over time. Therefore, our first aim was to identify and analyse the change over time of patient-related outcome measures in cohorts of patients who participated in IMPT programmes. Our second aim was to acquire insight into the heterogeneity of IMPT programmes.

Databases and data treatment

The study protocol was registered in Prospero under CRD42018076093. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Cinahl from inception to May 2020. All study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were independently performed by two researchers. Study cohorts were eligible if they included adult patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain for at least 3 months. We assessed the change over time, by calculating pre-post, post-follow-up and pre-follow-up contrasts for seven different patient-reported outcome domains. To explore the variability between the IMPT programmes, we summarized the patient characteristics and treatment programmes using the intervention description and replication checklist.

Results

The majority of the 72 included patient cohorts significantly improved during treatment. Importantly, this improvement was generally maintained at follow-up. In line with our expectations and with previous studies, we observed substantial methodological and statistical heterogeneity.

Conclusions

This study shows that participation in an IMPT programme is associated with considerable improvements in wellbeing that are generally maintained at follow-up. The current study also found substantial heterogeneity in dose and treatment content, which suggests different viewpoints on how to optimally design an IMPT programme.

Significance

The current study provides insight into the different existing approaches regarding the dose and content of IMPT programs. This analysis contributes to an increased understanding of the various approaches by which a biopsychosocial perspective on chronic pain can be translated to treatment programs. Furthermore, despite theoretical and empirical assertions regarding the difficulty to maintain newly learned health behaviors over time, the longitudinal analysis of health outcomes did not find a relapse pattern for patients who participated in IMPT programs.

SUBMITTER: Elbers S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9297911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic musculoskeletal pain is a prevalent condition impacting around 20% of people globally; resulting in patients living with pain, fatigue, restricted social and employment capacity, and reduced quality of life. Interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment programs have been shown to provide positive outcomes by supporting patients modify their behavior and improve pain management through focusing attention on specific patient valued goals rather than fighting pain.MethodsGiven the complex nature of chronic pain there is no single clinical measure to assess outcomes from multimodal pain programs. Using Centre for Integral Rehabilitation data from 2019-2021 (n = 2,364), we developed a multidimensional machine learning framework of 13 outcome measures across 5 clinically relevant domains including activity/disability, pain, fatigue, coping and quality of life. Machine learning models for each endpoint were separately trained using the most important 30 of 55 demographic and baseline variables based on minimum redundancy maximum relevance feature selection. Five-fold cross validation identified best performing algorithms which were rerun on deidentified source data to verify prognostic accuracy.ResultsIndividual algorithm performance ranged from 0.49 to 0.65 AUC reflecting characteristic outcome variation across patients, and unbalanced training data with high positive proportions of up to 86% for some measures. As expected, no single outcome provided a reliable indicator, however the complete set of algorithms established a stratified prognostic patient profile. Patient level validation achieved consistent prognostic assessment of outcomes for 75.3% of the study group (n = 1,953). Clinician review of a sample of predicted negative patients (n = 81) independently confirmed algorithm accuracy and suggests the prognostic profile is potentially valuable for patient selection and goal setting.DiscussionThese results indicate that although no single algorithm was individually conclusive, the complete stratified profile consistently identified patient outcomes. Our predictive profile provides promising positive contribution for clinicians and patients to assist with personalized assessment and goal setting, program engagement and improved patient outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic musculoskeletal pain has a vast global prevalence and economic burden. Conservative therapies are universally recommended but require patient engagement and self-management to be effective. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a 12-week digital care program (DCP) in a large population of patients with chronic knee and back pain. METHODS:A longitudinal observational study was conducted using a remote DCP available through a mobile app. Subjects participated in a 12-week multimodal DCP incorporating education, sensor-guided exercise therapy (ET), and behavioral health support with 1-on-1 remote health coaching. The primary outcome was pain measured by the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary measures included engagement levels, program completion, program satisfaction, condition-specific pain measures, depression, anxiety, and work productivity. RESULTS:A total of 10,264 adults with either knee (n=3796) or low back (n=6468) pain for at least three months were included in the study. Participants experienced a 68.45% average improvement in VAS pain between baseline intake and 12 weeks. In all, 73.04% (7497/10,264) participants completed the DCP into the final month. In total, 78.60% (5893/7497) of program completers (7144/10,264, 69.60% of all participants) achieved minimally important change in pain. Furthermore, the number of ET sessions and coaching interactions were both positively associated with improvement in pain, suggesting that the amount of engagement influenced outcomes. Secondary outcomes included a 57.9% and 58.3% decrease in depression and anxiety scores, respectively, and 61.5% improvement in work productivity. Finally, 3 distinct clusters of pain response trajectories were identified, which could be predicted with a mean 76% accuracy using baseline measures. CONCLUSIONS:These results support the efficacy and scalability of a DCP for chronic low back and knee pain in a large, diverse, real-world population. Participants demonstrated high completion and engagement rates and a significant positive relationship between engagement and pain reduction was identified, a finding that has not been previously demonstrated in a DCP. Furthermore, the large sample size allowed for the identification of distinct pain response subgroups, which may prove beneficial in predicting recovery and tailoring future interventions. This is the first longitudinal digital health study to analyze pain outcomes in a sample of this magnitude, and it supports the prospect for DCPs to serve the overwhelming number of musculoskeletal pain sufferers worldwide.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Developing successful interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain requires valid, responsive, and reliable outcome measures. The Minneapolis VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program completed a focused evidence review on key psychometric properties of 17 self-report measures of pain severity and pain-related functional impairment suitable for clinical research on chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS:Pain experts of the VA Pain Measurement Outcomes Workgroup identified 17 pain measures to undergo systematic review. In addition to a MEDLINE search on these 17 measures (1/2000-1/2017), we hand-searched (without publication date limits) the reference lists of all included studies, prior systematic reviews, and-when available-Web sites dedicated to each measure (PROSPERO registration CRD42017056610). Our primary outcome was the measure's minimal important difference (MID). Secondary outcomes included responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Outcomes were synthesized through evidence mapping and qualitative comparison. RESULTS:Of 1635 abstracts identified, 331 articles underwent full-text review, and 43 met inclusion criteria. Five measures (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) had data reported on MID, responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Seven measures had data reported on three of the four psychometric outcomes. Eight measures had reported MIDs, though estimation methods differed substantially and often were not clinically anchored. CONCLUSIONS:In this focused evidence review, the most evidence on key psychometric properties in chronic musculoskeletal pain populations was found for the ODI, RMDQ, SF-36 BPS, NRS, and VAS. Key limitations in the field include substantial variation in methods of estimating psychometric properties, defining chronic musculoskeletal pain, and reporting patient demographics. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42017056610.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aimed to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized studies published after 2009. Included studies had to report patient-reported pain outcomes (e.g., BPI total pain, GCPS pain intensity, RMDQ pain-related disability), include primary care as an intervention setting, and demonstrate some evidence of teamwork or teaming; specifically, they needed to involve at least two clinicians interacting with each other and with patients in an ongoing process over at least two timepoints. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We narratively synthesized intervention team structures and processes, comparing among interventions that reported a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported pain outcomes defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).ResultsWe included 13 total interventions in our review, of which eight reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported pain outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. We identified the role of a care manager as a common structural feature of the interventions with some clinical effect on patient-reported pain. The team processes involving clinicians varied across interventions reporting clinically improved pain outcomes. However, when analyzing team processes involving patients, six of the interventions with some clinical effect on pain relied on pre-scheduled phone calls for continuous patient follow-up.DiscussionOur review suggests that interdisciplinary interventions incorporating teamwork and teaming can improve patient-reported pain outcomes in comparison to usual care. Given the current evidence, future interventions might prioritize care managers and mechanisms for patient follow-up to help bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and the implementation of interdisciplinary, team-based chronic pain care.

Project description:ImportanceTick-borne diseases (TBDs) other than Lyme disease, such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis, ehrlichiosis, and galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-gal) syndrome, are an emerging public health issue. Long-term sequelae secondary to Ehrlichia or Rickettsia infection are uncommon; however, musculoskeletal symptoms are often attributed to prior tick exposure.ObjectiveTo evaluate the potential associations between prior exposure to TBDs and musculoskeletal symptoms, including radiographic osteoarthritis.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed serum samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing longitudinal, population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. Biospecimen testing and analysis were performed between May 2022 and November 2023. Participants in the JoCo OA project are noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years or older.Main outcome and measuresThe primary outcome was seropositivity with Ehrlichia IgG, Rickettsia IgG, and/or α-gal IgE and musculoskeletal symptoms. Secondary outcomes included risk factors associated with elevated α-gal IgE and weighted population point prevalence rates. Participants completed questionnaires, underwent physical assessments, and provided biospecimens for serological testing. Multivariable models were used to estimate associations of interest.ResultsOf the 605 participants who completed the fourth visit of the JoCo OA project, 488 (80.7%) had serum samples available for testing. The 488 participants had a median (IQR) age of 72 (68-78) years and included 336 females (68.9%) and 161 Black (33.0%) and 327 White (67.0%) individuals. The overall weighted point prevalence was 8.6% (95% CI, 5.9%-11.3%) for Ehrlichia IgG, 17.1% (95% CI, 12.6%-21.5%) for Rickettsia IgG, and 19.6% (95% CI, 15.3%-23.8%) for α-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL. Only α-gal IgE was associated with knee pain, aching or stiffness (mean ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.56). Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and α-gal were not associated with symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% CI, 1.55-4.47), current smoker status (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.38-9.18), and an attached tick bite in the past 5 years (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.22-7.15) were all risk factors that were associated with α-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL. Despite only 84 individuals (17.2%) recalling a tick bite in the past 5 years, 178 (36.5%) had evidence of prior tick-borne exposure, suggesting frequent human-tick interactions.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this cross-sectional study indicate no association between Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis. Further investigation is needed into the pathogenesis of α-gal syndrome and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions.