Do baseline patient reported outcome measures predict changes in self-reported function,following a chronic pain rehabilitation programme?

Abstract

Background

Interdisciplinary pain management programmes, based on cognitive-behavioural principles, aim to improve physical and psychological functioning and enhance self-management in people living with chronic pain. Currently there is insufficient evidence about whether psychological, biological or social factors are predictive of positive outcomes following pain rehabilitation. This study aims to evaluate predictors of change in Brief Pain Inventory – pain interference score (BPI) in a clinical data set to determine whether age, sex and baseline outcome measures are predictive of improvement in pain interference following pain rehabilitation.

Methods

A retrospective, pragmatic observational analysis of routinely collected clinical data in two pain rehabilitation programmes, Balanced Life Programme (BLP) and Get Back Active (GBA) was conducted. Standard regression and hierarchical regression analyses were used to identify predictors of change to assess temporal changes in BPI. Responder analysis was also conducted.

Results

Standard regression analyses of 208 (BLP) and 310 (GBA) patients showed that higher baseline BPI and better physical performance measures predicted better improvement in BPI across both programmes. Hierarchical regression showed that age and sex accounted for 2.7% (BLP) and 0.002% (GBA) of the variance in change in BPI. After controlling for age and sex, the other measures explained an additional 23% (BLP) and 19% (GBA) of the variance, p = < .001 where BPI and physical performance measures were consistently statistically significant predictors, p < .05. Responder analysis also showed that pain interference and physical performance were significantly associated with improvement (p = < .0005).

Conclusions

The combination of high self-reported pain interference and better physical performance measures may be a useful indicator of who would benefit from interdisciplinary rehabilitation. Further validation of the results is required.

Keywords

Chronic pain pain management predictive pain rehabilitation function outcome interdisciplinary

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Goldberg

McGee

. Pain as a global public health priority. BMC Publ Health 2011; 11(1): 770. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-770

International Association for the Study of Pain . Multidisciplinary pain centre development manual, 2021. Available from: https://www.iasp-pain.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/IASP-MPC_toolkit_chapt1.pdf

British Pain Society . The British pain society guidelines for pain management programmes for adults, 2013.

Public Health Scotland . Chronic pain waiting times. Glasgow: An Official Statistics Publication, 2021. pp. 1–30. Available from: https://www.pubhttps//www.publichealthscotland.scot/media/9074/2021-09-14-chronic-pain-waiting-times-report.pdflichealthscotland.scot/publications/chronic-pain-waiting-times/chronic-pain-waiting-times-quarter-ending-30-june-2021/

Hee

Mistry

, et al. Identification of subgroup effect with an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of three different types of therapist-delivered care in low back pain. BMC Muscoskel Disord 2021; 22: 191. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04028-8

Faculty of Pain Medicine . Core standards for pain management services in the UK. London: Royal College of Anaesthetists, 2021. Available from: https://fpm.ac.uk/standards-guidelines/core-standards

NICE . Chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16’s: assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary pain NG193, 2021. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng193/resources/chronic-pain-primary-and-secondary-in-over-16s-assessment-of-all-chronic-pain-and-management-of-chronic-primary-pain-pdf-66142080468421

Craner

Sperry

Koball

, et al. Unique contributions of acceptance and catastrophizing on chronic pain adaptation. Int J Behav Med 2017; 24(4): 542–551. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-017-9646-3

Boonstra

Reneman

Waaksma

, et al. Predictors of multidisciplinary treatment outcome in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Disabil Rehabil 2015; 37(14): 1242–1250. DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2014.961657

10.

France

Ysidron

Slepian

, et al. Pain resilience and catastrophizing combine to predict functional restoration program outcomes. Health Psychol 2020; 39(7): 573–579. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32324002

11.

Anamkath

Palyo

Jacobs

, et al. An interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program for veterans with chronic pain: description and initial evaluation of outcomes, Pain Res Manag 2018; 2018: 1–9. Available from: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/prm/2018/3941682/

12.

Knight

Guildford

Daly-Eichenhardt

, et al. Assessment and patient selection process for a pain management programme: a case study in specialty care. Br J Pain 2019; 13: 74–81.

13.

Heelas

Barker

. One size does not fit all: enabling choice and patient-centred care in a chronic pain rehabilitation service. Physiother 2021; 113: e184.

14.

British Pain Society . Guidelines for pain management programmes for adults (draft). London: The British Pain Society, 2019. Available from: https://www.britishpainsociety.org/static/uploads/resources/files/Guidelines_for_PMP_01082019_xc33xiN.pdf

15.

McCracken

Sato

Wainwright

, et al. A feasibility study of brief group-based acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain in general practice: recruitment, attendance, and patient views. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2014; 15(03): 312–323. Available from: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1463423613000273

16.

Denneny

Frijdal (nee Klapper)

Bianchi-Berthouze

, et al. The application of psychologically informed practice: observations of experienced physiotherapists working with people with chronic pain. Physiother 2019; 106; 163–173. DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2019.01.014

, et al. Psychologically informed physiotherapy for chronic pain: patient experiences of treatment and therapeutic process. Physiother 2017; 103(1): 98–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2015.11.005

18.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . Low back pain and sciatica in over 16s: assessment and management, 2016. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng59

19.

Gewandter

Dworkin

Turk

, et al. Research design considerations for chronic pain prevention clinical trials. Pain 2015; 156(7): 1184–1197. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00006396-201507000-00006

20.

Tan

Jensen

Thornby

, et al. Validation of the brief pain inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain 2004; 5: 133.

21.

Patel

Amtmann

Jensen

, et al. Clinical outcome assessment in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Pain Rep 2021; 6(1):e784. DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000784

22.

Zidarov

Zidarova-Carrié

Visca

, et al. Core patient-reported outcome domains for routine clinical care in chronic pain management: patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspective. Qual Life Res 2020; 29(7): 2007–2020. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02459-9

23.

Kroenke

Krebs

Turk

, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic musculoskeletal pain research: recommendations from a veterans health administration work group. Pain Med 2019; 20(8): 1500–1508.

24.

Jensen

Karoly

. Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Turk

Melzack

(eds) Handbook of pain assessment. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2011, pp. 19–44.

25.

Kroenke

Spitzer

. The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann 2002; 32(9): 509–515. DOI: 10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06

26.

Kroenke

Spitzer

Williams

JBW

. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 606–613.

27.

Jordan

Shedden-Mora

Löwe

. Psychometric analysis of the generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) in primary care using modern item response theory. PLoS One 2017; 12(8): e0182162. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28771530

28.

Spitzer

Kroenke

Williams

JBW

, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 1092–1097.

29.

French

France

Vigneau

, et al. Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic pain: a psychometric assessment of the original English version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). Pain 2007; 127(1): 42–51. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00006396-200701000-00008

30.

Roelofs

Goubert

Peters

, et al. The tampa scale for kinesiophobia: further examination of psychometric properties in patients with chronic low back pain and fibromyalgia. Eur J Pain 2004; 8: 495–502.

31.

Fish

McGuire

Hogan

, et al. Validation of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) in an Internet sample and development and preliminary validation of the CPAQ-8. Pain 2010; 149(3): 435–443. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00006396-201006000-00009

32.

Cella

Chalder

. Measuring fatigue in clinical and community settings. J Psychosom Res 2010; 69: 17–22.

33.

Chalder

Berelowitz

Pawlikowska

, et al. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res 1993; 37(2): 147–153. Available from: https://linkinghub-elsevier-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/retrieve/pii/002239999390081P

34.

Taylor

Frost

Taylor

, et al. Reliability and responsiveness of the shuttle walking test in patients with chronic low back pain. Physiother Res Int 2001; 6(3): 170–178. DOI: 10.1002/pri.225

35.

Parsons

Harding

Breen

, et al. The influence of patients’ and primary care practitioners’ beliefs and expectations about chronic musculoskeletal pain on the process of care: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Clin J Pain 2007; 23(1): 91–98.

36.

Guildford

Jacobs

Daly-Eichenhardt

, et al. Assessing physical functioning on pain management programmes: the unique contribution of directly assessed physical performance measures and their relationship to self-reports. Br J Pain 2017; 11(1): 46–57. DOI: 10.1177/2049463716680559

37.

Revicki

Hays

Cella

, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61(2): 102–109. Available from: https://linkinghub-elsevier-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/retrieve/pii/S0895435607001199

38.

Amtmann

Kim

Chung

, et al. Minimally important differences for patient reported outcomes measurement information system pain interference for individuals with back pain, J Pain Res 2016; 9: 251. Available from: https://www.dovepress.com/minimally-important-differences-for-patient-reported-outcomes-measurem-peer-reviewed-article-JPR

39.

Chen

Kroenke

Stump

, et al. Estimating minimally important differences for the PROMIS pain interference scales: results from 3 randomized clinical trials, Pain 2018; 159(4): 775–782. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00006396-201804000-00017

40.

Nicholas

Vlaeyen

JWS

Rief

, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic primary pain. Pain 2019; 160(1): 28–37.

41.

Perrot

Cohen

Barke

, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Pain 2019; 160(1): 77–82. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00006396-201901000-00010

42.

Scholz

Finnerup

Attal

, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic neuropathic pain. Pain 2019; 160(1): 53–59. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00006396-201901000-00007

43.

Aziz

Giamberardino

Barke

, et al. The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic secondary visceral pain. Pain 2019; 160(1): 69–76.

44.

Boonstra

Reneman

Waaksma

, et al. Predictors of multidisciplinary treatment outcome in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Disabil Rehabil 2015; 37(14): 1242–1250. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25228388

45.

Tseli

Vixner

LoMartire

, et al. Prognostic factors for improved physical and emotional functioning one year after interdisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic pain: results from a national quality registry in Sweden. J Rehabil Med 2020; 52: jrm00019. DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2648

46.

Gilpin

Stahl

McCracken

. A theoretically guided approach to identifying predictors of treatment outcome in Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for chronic pain. Eur J Pain 2019; 23(2): 354–366. DOI: 10.1002/ejp.1310

47.

Jensen

Smith

Alschuler

, et al. The role of pain acceptance on function in individuals with disabilities. Pain 2016; 157(1): 247–254. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00006396-201601000-00025

48.

Tauben

Theodore

. Measurement-based stepped care approach to interdisciplinary chronic pain management. In: Practical management of pain (5th edition) Chapter 4,2014, pp. 37-46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-08340-9.00004-9

49.

Hill

Whitehurst

DGT

Lewis

, et al. Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011; 378: 1560–1571.

50.

Buzasi

Kurakata

Gandhi

, et al. Effects of booster sessions on self-management interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Pain 2022; 163(2): 214–257. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002302

51.

Price

de C

Williams

, et al. Implementation of patient‐reported outcomes (PROMs) from specialist pain clinics in England and Wales: experience from a nationwide study. Eur J Pain 2019; 23: ejp.1406. DOI: 10.1002/ejp.1406

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.63 MB