Chronic Pain Patients—Effects on Mental Health and Pain After a 57-Week Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Program

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnhild Myhr ◽  
Liv Berit Augestad
Author(s):  
Lia Van der Maas ◽  
Judith E. Bosmans ◽  
Maurits W. Van Tulder ◽  
Thomas W.J. Janssen

Introduction: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness (CE) of a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program (treatment as usual [TAU]) with and without psychomotor therapy (PMT) for chronic pain patients. Methods: Chronic pain patients were assigned to TAU + PMT or TAU using cluster randomization. Clinical outcomes measured were health-related quality of life (HRQOL), pain-related disability, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Uncertainty surrounding incremental CE ratios was estimated using bootstrapping and presented in CE planes and CE acceptability curves. Results: Ninety-four chronic pain patients (n = 49 TAU + PMT and n = 45 TAU) were included. There were no significant differences in HRQOL, Pain Disability Index, and QALYs between TAU + PMT and TAU. Direct costs in TAU + PMT were significantly higher than in TAU (mean difference €3327, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1329; 5506). However, total societal costs in TAU + PMT were not significantly higher than in TAU (mean difference €642, 95% CI −3323; 4373). CE analyses showed that TAU + PMT was not cost-effective in comparison with TAU. Conclusions: Adding PMT to a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program is not considered cost-effective in comparison with a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program alone. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size and high drop-out rate.


2009 ◽  
Vol 104 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 34-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caleb J. Banta-Green ◽  
Joseph O. Merrill ◽  
Suzanne R. Doyle ◽  
Denise M. Boudreau ◽  
Donald A. Calsyn

Pain ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. S415
Author(s):  
A. H. Lebovits ◽  
D. M. Richlin ◽  
S. Rule ◽  
M. Lefkowitzl

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-176
Author(s):  
E.-B. Hysing ◽  
L. Smith ◽  
M. Thulin ◽  
R. Karlsten ◽  
T. Gordh

AbstractAimsA few previous studies indicate an ongoing of low-grade systemic inflammation in chronic pain patients (CPP) [1, 2]. In the present study we investigated the plasma inflammatory profile in severely impaired chronic pain patients. In addition we studied if there were any alterations in inflammation patterns at one-year follow up, after the patients had taken part in a CBT-ACT based 4 weeks in-hospital pain rehabilitation program (PRP).Methods Blood samples were collected from 52 well characterized chronic pain patients. Plasma from matched healthy blood donors were used as controls. At one year after the treatment program, 28 of the patients were available for follow up. Instead of only analyzing single inflammation-related substances, we used a new multiplex panel enabling the simultaneous analysis of 92 inflammation-related proteins, mainly cytokines and chemokines (Proseek Inflammation, Olink, Uppsala, Sweden). Multivariate statistics were used for analysis.ResultsClear signs of increased inflammatory activity were detected in the pain patients. Accepting a false discovery rate (FDR) of 5%, there were significant differences in 43 of the 92 inflammatory biomarkers. The expression of 8 biomarkers were 4 times higher in patients compared to controls. Three biomarkers, CXCL5, SIRT2, AXIN1 were more than 8 times higher. The conventional marker for inflammation, CRP, did not differ. Of the 28 patients available for follow up one year after the intervention, all showed lower levels of the inflammatory biomarker initially raised.ConclusionsThe results indicate that CPP suffer from a low grade of chronic systemic inflammation, not detectable by CRP analysis. This may have implications for the general pain hypersensitivity, and other symptoms, often described in this group of patients. We conclude that inflammatory plasma proteins may be measureable molecular markers to distinguishes CPP from pain free controls, and that a CBT-ACT pain rehab program seem to decrease this inflammatory activity.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Suso-Ribera ◽  
Montsant Jornet-Gibert ◽  
Maria Victoria Ribera Canudas ◽  
Lance M. McCracken ◽  
Alberto Maydeu-Olivares ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikael Svanberg ◽  
Ann-Christin Johansson ◽  
Katja Boersma

Abstract Background and aims Among chronic pain patients who are referred to participation in a multimodal rehabilitation program (MMRP), pain catastrophizing and dysfunctional pain coping is common. In many cases it may have driven the patient to a range of unsuccessful searches for biomedical explanations and pain relief. Often these efforts have left patients feeling disappointed, hopeless and misunderstood. The MMRP process can be preceded by a multimodal investigation (MMI) where an important effort is to validate the patient to create a good alliance and begin a process of change towards acceptance of the pain. However, whether the MMI has such therapeutic effect is unclear. Using a repeated single case experimental design, the purpose of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effect of MMI by studying changes in patients’ experience of validation, alliance, acceptance of pain, coping, catastrophizing, and depression before and during the MMI process. Methods Participants were six chronic pain patients with high levels of pain catastrophizing (>25 on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale) and risk for long term disability (>105 on the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire) who were subjected to MMI before planned MMRP. For each patient, weekly self-report measures of validation, alliance and acceptance of pain were obtained during a 5–10-weeks baseline, before the MMI started. Subsequently, these measures were also obtained during a 6–8 weeks MMI process in order to enable comparative analyses. Additionally, pain coping, depression and pain catastrophizing were measured using standardized questionnaires before and after the MMI. Results Irrespective of experiences of validation and alliance before MMI, all six patients felt validated and experienced a good alliance during MMI. Acceptance of pain improved only in one patient during MMI. None of the patients showed clinically relevant improvement in pain coping, depression or catastrophizing after the MMI. Conclusions The patients did not change their acceptance and pain coping strategies despite of good alliance and experience of validation during the MMI process. Even if the design of this study precludes generalization to chronic pain patients in general, the results suggest that MMI may not have a therapeutic effect.


Pain Medicine ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 356-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Nielsen ◽  
Nicholas Lintzeris ◽  
Raimondo Bruno ◽  
Gabrielle Campbell ◽  
Briony Larance ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Cevasco ◽  
Bill Saunders

ObjectiveAssessing mental health and opioid addiction comorbidities among chronic pain patients using a large longitudinal clinical, operational, and laboratory data set.IntroductionThe National Institute for Drug Abuse Report, Common Comorbidities with Substance Use Disorders, states there are “many individuals who develop substance use disorders (SUD) are also diagnosed with mental disorders, and vice versa.”(1) Prescription opioids are amongst the most commonly used drugs that lead to illicit drug use.(2)Much of the data about the starting point of the prescription opioid addiction is in the patient health history and is recorded within the provider electronic health record and administrative systems.DescriptionThere are a variety of addiction and misuse risk screening tools available and selecting appropriate tools screening can be confusing for providers. Examples of common screening tools: Opioid Abuse Risk Screener (OARS), Opioid Risk Tool (ORT), Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP), Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM), Diagnosis, Intractability, Risk, and Efficacy (DIRE). These opioid risk screening tools are interview based and vary in how they survey for psychosocial factors. The screening tools are useful, but are meant only to alert the provider to conduct further investigation.(3)Understanding how the comorbidities recorded in the patient’s clinical interactions may help improve risk assessment investigations and ongoing monitoring programs. Studying the chronic pain patients’ longitudinal clinical, operational, and laboratory records provides the basis for better study controls than those using population based on emergency department admission and mortality events.MethodsThe analysis leverages IBM's Explorys electronic health record (EHR) data, a large integrated source of real world clinical, operational and lab data across 39 large integrated delivery networks that span the continuum of care. In addition to demographic characteristics of drug abusers, we will describe common comorbidities of selected mental health diagnoses, examine coding-related issues, distinguish chronic and episodic addiction and look for regional differences due to state/local level prescribing training and provider addiction awareness.How the Moderator Intends to Engage the Audience in Discussions on the TopicPromote the event through interatction with the @ISDS twitter account and #ISDS19 hashtag.Solicit question for presenters-panelists through social media before the briefing, and meet with presenters before the event to tune the presenations to areas of interest.Conduct a demographic poll of the audience to get them engaged. Ask audience to stand to show their organization-role. e.g. state-local public health, provider, vendor. This helps the presenters adapt to the audience profile.After each panelist speaks, have the panelist ask a question to the audience about a lingering question that arose during the research. Limit the audience to ~1 minute to answer. Allow panelists to ask a few more questions if the process is working, but limit to overall event time schedule.Finish with Q&A from the audience.References1. Abuse NI on D. Part 1: The Connection Between Substance Use Disorders and Mental Illness [Internet]. [cited 2018 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/common-comorbidities-substance-use-disorders/part-1-connection-between-substance-use-disorders-mental-illness2. Lankenau SE, Teti M, Silva K, Bloom JJ, Harocopos A, Treese M. Initiation into prescription opioid misuse amongst young injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2012 Jan 1;23(1):37–44.3. Hudspeth RS. Safe Opioid Prescribing for Adults by Nurse Practitioners: Part 1. Patient History and Assessment Standards and Techniques. J Nurse Pract. 2016 Mar;12(3):141–8. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document