Effects of multidisciplinary pain treatment can be predicted without elaborate questionnaires.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fischer CA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3936078 | biostudies-other | 2014 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:The Quebec Pain Registry (QPR) is a large research database of patients suffering from various chronic pain (CP) syndromes who were referred to one of five tertiary care centres in the province of Quebec (Canada). Patients were monitored using common demographics, identical clinical descriptors, and uniform validated outcomes. This paper describes the development, implementation, and research potential of the QPR. Between 2008 and 2013, 6902 patients were enrolled in the QPR, and data were collected prior to their first visit at the pain clinic and six months later. More than 90% of them (mean age ± SD: 52.76 ± 4.60, females: 59.1%) consented that their QPR data be used for research purposes. The results suggest that, compared to patients with serious chronic medical disorders, CP patients referred to tertiary care clinics are more severely impaired in multiple domains including emotional and physical functioning. The QPR is also a powerful and comprehensive tool for conducting research in a "real-world" context with 27 observational studies and satellite research projects which have been completed or are underway. It contains data on the clinical evolution of thousands of patients and provides the opportunity of answering important research questions on various aspects of CP (or specific pain syndromes) and its management.
| S-EPMC5322414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Perioperatively, patients are near-guaranteed to experience acute pain by virtue of the surgical tissue insult. The transition of acute pain to pathological chronic pain is a complex and poorly understood process. To study this, the prevalence of pain was examined preoperatively, and at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. METHODS:Fifty-four patients undergoing moderate-major gynaecological surgery at Christchurch Women's Hospital (Christchurch, New Zealand) were recruited over a period of 11 weeks. Follow-up by telephone was conducted at 6 weeks and 3 months following surgery. Demographic information including age, gender, ethnicity, work, and education status were collected, as well as aspects of medical history. Participants were subjected to psychometric questionnaires at each time-point. RESULTS:Of the participants, 15.7% experienced significant pain at 6 weeks postoperatively; 8.2% of participants experienced significant pain at 3 months postoperatively. The psychometric questionnaires used found differences between those experiencing pain and those not experiencing pain at given observation points. Only the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ) appeared predictive of developing prolonged postoperative pain. The mean difference (7.4 on a 0-50) scale should assist in clinical decision-making regarding analgesia. CONCLUSION:Only the BIPQ was predictive of developing prolonged postoperative pain. While none of the demographic factors observed significantly predicted the development of 'prolonged pain', the not significant data followed expected trends. Several relationships were detected in this study that should further efforts in developing preoperative predictors to promote the secondary prevention of postoperative pain states.
| S-EPMC4470970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Access to multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities (MPTF) is limited by extensive waiting time in many countries. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the impact of waiting time on clinical outcomes, particularly for patients with rheumatic conditions. This study examined the association between waiting time for MPTF and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatic conditions. Methods:Data were extracted from the Quebec Pain Registry, a large database of patients who received services in MPTF. The associations between waiting time (classified as <?2?months, 2-6?months and?>? 6?months) and change in pain interference, pain intensity and health-related quality of life, from the initial visit at the MPTF to the 6-month follow-up, were tested using generalized estimating equations. Results:A total of 3230 patients with rheumatic conditions (mean age: 55.8?±?14.0?years; 66% were women) were included in the analysis. Small significant differences in improvement between waiting time groups were revealed, with patients waiting less than 2?months having a larger improvement in all clinical outcomes compared to patients who waited 2-6?months or over 6?months before their initial visit (adjusted time X group effect p???0.001). Only patients waiting less than 2?months reached a clinically important improvement in pain interference (1.12/10), pain intensity (1.3/10) and physical and mental quality of life (3.9 and 3.7/100). Conclusions:Longer delays experienced by patients before receiving services in MPTF were associated with statistically significant smaller improvements in pain interference, pain intensity and health-related quality of life; these differences were, however, not clinically significant. Based on these results, we advise that strategies are developed not only to reduce waiting times and mitigate their impacts on patients with rheumatic conditions, but also to improve treatment effectiveness in MPTF.
| S-EPMC7583241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of global disability. Multidisciplinary pain treatment (MPT) programs comprising educational, physical, and psychological interventions have shown positive treatment effects on LBP. Nonetheless, such programs are costly and treatment opportunities are often limited to specialized medical centers. mHealth and other digital interventions may be a promising method to successfully support patient self-management in LBP. To address these issues, we investigated the clinical effects of a multidisciplinary mHealth back pain App (Kaia App) in a randomized controlled trial (registered at German Clinical Trials Register under DRKS00016329). One-hundred one adult patients with non-specific LBP from 6 weeks to 1 year were randomly assigned to an intervention group or a control group. In the intervention group, the Kaia App was provided for 3 months. Control treatment consisted of six individual physiotherapy sessions over 6 weeks and high-quality online education. The primary outcome, pain intensity, was assessed at 12-week follow-up on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Our per-protocol analysis showed no significant differences between the groups at baseline (Kaia App group: M?=?5.10 (SD?=?1.07) vs. control group: M?=?5.41 (SD?=?1.15). At 12-week follow-up the Kaia App group reported significantly lower pain intensity (M?=?2.70 (SD?=?1.51)) compared to the control group (M?=?3.40 (SD?=?1.63)). Our results indicate that the Kaia App as a multidisciplinary back pain app is an effective treatment in LBP patients and is superior to physiotherapy in combination with online education.
| S-EPMC6550294 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a significant public health issue, with prevalence intensifying due to an ageing global population, amassing approximately 619 million cases in 2020 and projected to escalate to 843 million by 2050. In this study, we analyzed the effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) on pain and disability. To address this question, we conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review and random-effect network meta-analysis on studies collected from six electronic databases. The network comprised diverse MBR modalities (behavioral, educational, and work conditioning) alongside exercise therapy (ET), minimal intervention, and usual care, with pain and disability as outcomes. Ninety-three studies were included, encompassing a total of 8059 participants. The NMA substantiated that both ET and MBR modalities were effective in alleviating CLBP, with education-oriented MBR emerging as the most efficacious for pain mitigation (MD = 18.29; 95% CI = 13.70; 22.89) and behavior-focused MBR being the most efficacious for disability reduction (SMD = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.46; 1.30). Nevertheless, the discerned differences amongst the treatments were minimal and uncertain, highlighting that no modality was definitively superior to the others. Given the intricate nature of CLBP, embodying various facets, our findings advocate for a combined therapeutic approach to optimize treatment efficacy.
| S-EPMC10707228 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObservational studies have hinted at a correlation between the gut microbiota and spinal pain (SP). However, the impact of the gut microbiota on SP remains inconclusive.MethodsIn this study, we employed a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to explore the causal relationship between the gut microbiota and SP, encompassing neck pain (NP), thoracic spine pain (TSP), low back pain (LBP), and back pain (BP). The compiled gut microbiota data originated from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) conducted by the MiBioGen consortium (n = 18,340). Summary data for NP were sourced from the UK Biobank, TSP from the FinnGen Biobank, and LBP from both the UK Biobank and FinnGen Biobank. Summary data for BP were obtained from the UK Biobank. The primary analytical approach for assessing causal relationships was the Inverse Variance Weighted (IVW) method, supplemented by various sensitivity analyses to ensure result robustness.ResultsThe IVW analysis unveiled 37 bacterial genera with a potential causal relationship to SP. After Benjamini-Hochberg corrected test, four bacterial genera emerged with a strong causal relationship to SP. Specifically, Oxalobacter (OR: 1.143, 95% CI 1.061-1.232, P = 0.0004) and Tyzzerella 3 (OR: 1.145, 95% CI 1.059-1.238, P = 0.0007) were identified as risk factors for LBP, while Ruminococcaceae UCG011 (OR: 0.859, 95% CI 0.791-0.932, P = 0.0003) was marked as a protective factor for LBP, and Olsenella (OR: 0.893, 95% CI 0.839-0.951, P = 0.0004) was recognized as a protective factor for low back pain or/and sciatica. No significant heterogeneity or horizontal pleiotropy was observed through alternative testing methods.ConclusionThis study establishes a causal relationship between the gut microbiota and SP, shedding light on the "gut-spine" axis. These findings offer novel perspectives for understanding the etiology of SP and provide a theoretical foundation for potential interventions targeting the gut microbiota to prevent and treat SP.
| S-EPMC10999687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multidisciplinary pain management programs (MPMP) for patients suffering from chronic back pain include a variety of treatment modalities. The patients' perceived helpfulness of these treatment modalities remains unclear. The aims of this prospective observational cohort study were to assess (i) the patients' perceived helpfulness of different treatment modalities, (ii) the influence of sociodemographic characteristics on the patient's perspective and (iii) whether treatment outcomes are affected by helpfulness ratings. Treatment modalities of this three-week MPMP consisted of individual physiotherapy, group-based physiotherapy, relaxation therapy, aquatic therapy, back education, medical training therapy, biofeedback, psychological pain therapy and music therapy. The study comprised 395 patients. The main outcome was the patients' perceived treatment helpfulness at the end of the program measured by a self-reported questionnaire ranging from 1 (not at all helpful) to 6 (extremely helpful). Secondary outcomes were treatment effects on pain, pain related disability, functional ability and level of depressive symptoms measured by self-reported questionnaires (NRS, PDI, FFbH-R, ADS-L). A total of 276 patients (22-64 years, 57% female) were available for overall analysis. Multivariate-analysis-of-variance- (MANOVA-) related results revealed that perceived treatment helpfulness (range 1-6) differed significantly between treatment modalities: individual physiotherapy (M = 5.00), group-based physiotherapy (M = 4.87), relaxation therapy (M = 4.6), aquatic therapy (M = 4.54), back education (M = 4.43), medical training therapy (M = 3.38), biofeedback (M = 3.31), psychological pain therapy (M = 3.15), music therapy (M = 3.02). Pain, pain related disability and levels of depressive symptoms significantly improved after the program (p < 0.001) whereas functional ability decreased (p < 0.01). Significant correlations were found between helpfulness ratings and sociodemographic data indicating that perceived treatment helpfulness was influenced by patient-related factors. Importantly, the degree of pain-related improvements was affected by the patients' perceived treatment helpfulness. In conclusion, patients' perceived treatment helpfulness differs significantly between treatment modalities and corresponds to treatment outcome.
| S-EPMC7019713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is burdensome and costly, and a common condition for which adults use integrative therapies. The effectiveness of multidisciplinary integrative approaches has not been well studied. The purpose of this observational study was to compare characteristics and outcomes of CLBP patients treated at the Osher Clinical Center (OCC) versus other clinics at Brigham and Women's Hospital. DESIGN:Observational comparative effectiveness study. SETTING:Tertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS:Patients ?21 years with 3+ months of CLBP or 6+ months of intermittent low-back pain. INTERVENTION:All patients were observed for 12 months. OCC patients received care at the integrative clinic (7.3 visits on average over 13 weeks); non-OCC patients received usual care at other clinics of the same hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcomes: change from baseline to 6 months in functional status (Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]) and bothersomeness of pain (BOP). SECONDARY OUTCOMES:change in RDQ and BOP at 3 and 12 months, percentages of patients with clinically meaningful (?30%) improvements. RESULTS:One hundred fifty-six OCC and 153 non-OCC participants were enrolled; follow-up was 90.4 and 98.0%, respectively, at 12 months. There were substantial differences in baseline characteristics between groups. For RDQ, the adjusted mean group difference was nonsignificant at 6 months; for BOP, the differences were significant, but clinically small. At 12 months, the observed benefit on RDQ was significant and clinically meaningful; for BOP, there were significant, but clinically small differences. Percentages of patients with ?30% improvements in RDQ were significantly greater in the OCC group only at 12 months, and both 6 and 12 months for BOP. CONCLUSIONS:Baseline characteristics can differ between those who select different sources of healthcare for CLBP. While benefits seen in the OCC versus non-OCC clinics were not large, further evaluation through randomized trials might be warranted to provide a more definitive evaluation.
| S-EPMC6103251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The recognition of chronic pain as a biopsychosocial phenomenon has led to the establishment of multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities, such as pain centres. Previous studies have focussed on inpatient, group-based or time-limited multidisciplinary pain programmes. The aim was to investigate variation in patients' experiences of attending individual outpatient multidisciplinary treatment at pain centres in Norway. METHODS:This was a qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews with 19 informants. The informants were recruited among persons who after referral by their general practitioners 12?months prior had attended multidisciplinary pain treatment at a pain centre. The data were analysed thematically using systematic text condensation. RESULTS:The informants had received different treatments at the pain centres. Some had undergone only one multidisciplinary assessment in which a physician, a psychologist and a physiotherapist had been present, whereas others had initially been to a multidisciplinary assessment and then continued treatment by one or more of the professionals at the centre. Their experiences ranged from the pain centre as being described as a lifebuoy by some informants who had attended treatment over time, to being described as a waste of time by others who had only attended one or two multidisciplinary sessions. Prominent experiences included being met with understanding and a perception of receiving the best possible treatment, but also included disappointment over not being offered any treatment and perceiving the multidisciplinary approach as unnecessary. CONCLUSIONS:There were large variations in the informants' experiences in the pain centres. The findings indicate that the pain centres' multidisciplinary approach can represent a new approach to living with chronic pain but may also not provide anything new. Efforts should be devoted to ensuring that the pain centres' multidisciplinary treatment approach is aligned with their patients' actual needs.
| S-EPMC6936064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effect of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic literature review of randomised controlled trials.ParticipantsA total of 1964 patients with disabling low back pain for more than three months.Main outcome measuresPain, function, employment, quality of life, and global assessments.ResultsTen trials reported on a total of 12 randomised comparisons of multidisciplinary treatment and a control condition. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration improves function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psychophysical treatments did not improve pain, function, or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments.ConclusionsThe reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain and improves function in patients with chronic low back pain. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.
| S-EPMC33389 | biostudies-literature