Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 3/2008

01-04-2008

Evaluation of a Multi-disciplinary Back Pain Rehabilitation Programme—Individual and Group Perspectives

Auteurs: Andrew Baird, Lisa Worral, Cheryl Haslam, Roger Haslam

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2008

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the impact of a multi-disciplinary back pain rehabilitation programme using a combination of individual and group change data.

Methods

A total of 261 consecutive patients attending an assessment session for the back pain rehabilitation programme completed the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. The patients were requested to complete the questionnaires again at programme completion and at the 6-month follow-up. The Reliable Change Index was used to define ‘clinical significance’ in terms of the assessment of individual change.

Results

Half of those patients considered to be suitable for the programme subsequently completed it. In group terms, non-completers scored lower than completers on all SF-36 scales. Statistically significant improvements were evident for those completing the programme (all scales at P < 0.000), with improvement maintained at follow-up. In individual terms, ‘clinical significance’ was exceeded most frequently in the Physical Functioning and Role Physical scales. Whilst some participants lost previous improvements between completion and follow-up, others improved over this same time period. The majority of those completing the programme showed improvement in at least one scale.

Conclusions

Adding assessment of individual change to traditional group change measures provides greater insight into the impact a rehabilitation programme has upon participants’ quality of life. Whilst the programme is clearly effective for those who complete it, work is required to limit post-programme deterioration and improve uptake.
volgende artikel Improving quality of life using compound mind-body therapies: evaluation of a course intervention with body movement and breath therapy, guided imagery, chakra experiencing and mindfulness meditation
Literatuur
1.
Waddell, G. (2004). The back pain revolution. London: Churchill Livingstone.
2.
Snook, S. (2004). Work-related low back pain: Secondary intervention. Journal of Electromyography Kinesiology, 14, 153–160.CrossRef
3.
Deyo, R., & Weinstein, J. (2001). Low back pain. The New England Journal of Medicine, 344, 363–370.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Thomsen, A., Sorenson, J., Sjorgen, P., & Eriksen, J. (2002). Chronic non-malignant pain patients and health economic consequences. European Journal of Pain, 6, 341–352.PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Borkan, J., Van Tulder, M., Reis, S., Schoene, M., Croft, P., & Hermoni, D. (2002). Advances in the field of low back pain in primary care: A report from the fourth international forum. Spine, 27, 128–132.CrossRef
7.
Fordyce, W., & the International Association for the Study of Pain Task Force on Pain. (1995). Back pain in the workplace: Management of disability in nonspecific conditions. Seattle: IASP Press.
8.
Linton, S., & Ryberg, M. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral group intervention as prevention for persistent neck and back pain in a non-patient population: A randomized controlled trial. Pain, 90, 83–90.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Morley, S., Eccleston, C., & Williams, A. (1999). Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of cognitive behaviour therapy and behaviour therapy for chronic pain in adults, excluding headache. Pain, 80, 1–13.PubMedCrossRef
10.
van Tulder, M., Ostelo, R., Vlaeyen, J., Linton, S., Morley, S., & Assendelft, W. (2000). Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine, 25, 2688–2699.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Abenhaim, L., Rossignol, M., Valat, J., Nordin, M., Avouac, B., & Blotman, F. (2000). The role of activity in the therapeutic management of back pain. Report of the International Paris Task Force on Back Pain. Spine, 25, 1S–33S.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Liddle, S., Baxter, G., & Gracey, J. (2004). Exercise and chronic low back pain: What works? Pain, 107, 176–190.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Guzman, J., Esmail, R., Karjalainen, K., Malmivaara, A., Irvin, E., & Bombardier, C. (2001). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 322, 1511–1516.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Karjalainen, K., Malmivaara, A., van Tulder, M., Roine, R., Jauhiainen, M., Hurri, H., & Koes, B. (2001). Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain in working-age adults: A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine, 26, 262–269.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Turk, D. (2002). Chronic non-malignant pain patients and health economic consequences. European Journal of Pain, 6, 353–355.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Airaksinen, O., Brox, J.-I., Cedraschi, C., Hildebrandt, J., Klaber-Moffett, J., Kovacs, F., Mannion, A., Reis, S., Staal, J., Ursin, H., & Zanoli, G. (2005). Multi-disciplinary interventions. In Cost Action B13, European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Brussels: European Commission Research Inspectorate General.
17.
Balague, F., Mannion, A., Pellise F., & Cedraschi, C. (2007). Clinical update: Low back pain. The Lancet, 369, 726–728.CrossRef
18.
Chou, R., Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Casey, D., Cross, J., Shekelle, P., & Owens, D. (2007). Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: A joint clinical practice guideline from the American college of physicians and the American pain society. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147, 478–491.PubMed
19.
Ferguson, R., Robinson, A., & Splaine, M. (2002). Use of the Reliable Change Index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 11, 509–516.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Clinical Standards Advisory Group Committee on Back Pain. (1994). Back pain: Report of a CSAG committee on back pain. London: HMSO.
21.
22.
23.
Ware, J., Kosinki, M., Bjorner, J., Turner-Bowker, D., Gandek, B, & Maruish, M. (2007). User’s manual for the SF-36v2 health survey (2nd ed.). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.
24.
Williams, P., & Nerenz, D. (1995). When should nonparametric statistics be used to analyses f-36 scores? AHSR FHSR Annual Meeting Abstract Book, 12, 152–153.
25.
Velanovich, V. (2007). Behaviour and analysis of sf-36 short-form health survey data for surgical quality-of-life research. Archives of Surgery, 142, 473–478.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Walters, S., & Campbell, M. (2004). The use of bootstrap methods for analyzing health-related quality of life outcomes (particularly the SF-36). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 70.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Walters, S. (2004). Sample size and power estimation for studies with health related quality of life outcomes: A comparison of four methods using SF-36. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 26.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Vickers, A. (2005). Parametric versus non-parametric statistics in the analysis of randomized trials with non-normally distributed data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5, 35.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Bridge, P., & Sawilowski, S. (1999). Increasing physicians’ awareness of the impact of statistics on research outcomes: Comparative Power of the t-test and Wilcoxon rank–sum test in small samples applied research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 229–235.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Hays, R., Brodsky, M., Johnston, M., Spritzer, K., & Hui, K. (2005). Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Evaluation & Health Professions, 28, 160–171.CrossRef
31.
Bauer, S, Lambert, M., & Nielsen, S. (2004). Clinical significance methods: A comparison of statistical techniques. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 60–70.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Jenkinson, C., Stewart-Brown, S., Peterson, S., & Paice, C. (1999). Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 46–50.PubMed
33.
34.
Evans, C., Margison, F., & Barkham, M. (1998). The contribution of reliable and clinically significant change methods to evidence-based mental health. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 1, 70–72.CrossRef
35.
Cella, D., Bullinger, M., Scott, C., & Barofsky, I. (2002). Group vs. individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 384–392.PubMed
36.
Hoogendoorn, W., Bongers, P., de Vet, H., Twisk, J., van Mechelen, W., & Bouter, L. (2002). Comparison of two different approaches for the analysis of data from a prospective cohort study: An application to work related risk factors for low back pain. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59, 459–465.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Vollenbroek-Hutten, M., Hermens, H., Wever, D., Gorter, M., Rinket, J., & Ijzerman, M. (2004). Differences in outcome of a multi-disciplinary treatment between subgroups of chronic low back pain patients defined using two multiaxial assessment instruments: The multidimensional pain inventory and lumbar dynamometry. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 566–579.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Atkins, D., Bedics, J., McGlinchey, J., & Beauchaine, T. (2005). Assessing clinical significance: Does it matter which method we use? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 982–989.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Sloan, J., Cella, D., & Hays, R. (2005). Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: Another step towards consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 1217–1219.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Sloan, J. (2003). Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Information Journal, 37, 23–31.
41.
Hays, R., & Woolley, J. (2000). The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research—how meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics, 18, 419–423.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Jacobson, N., Follette, W., & Revenstorf, D. (1984). Psychotherapy outcome research: Methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Behaviour Therapy, 15, 336–352.CrossRef
43.
Jacobson, N., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Bombardier, C., Hayden, J., & Beaton, D. (2001). Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: Outcome measures. The Journal of Rheumatology, 28, 431–438.PubMed
45.
UK Beam Trial Team. (2004). United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: Effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. British Medical Journal, 329, 1377.CrossRef
46.
Gatchel, R., Mayer, T., Dersh, J., Robinson, R., & Polatin, P. (1999). The association of the SF-36 health status survey with 1-year socioeconomic outcomes in a chronically disabled spinal disorder population. Spine, 24, 2162–2170.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Keogh, E., & Herdenfeldt, M. (2002). Gender, coping and the perception of pain. Pain, 97, 195–201.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Dixon, K., Thorn, B., & Ward, L. (2004). An evaluation of sex differences in psychological and physiological responses to experimentally-induced pain: A path analytic description. Pain, 112, 188–196.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Keogh, E., McCracken, L., & Eclestone, C. (2005). Do men and women differ in their response to interdisciplinary chronic pain management? Pain, 114, 37–46.PubMedCrossRef
50.
McGeary, D., Mayer, T., Gatchel, R., Anagnostis, C., & Proctor, T. (2003). Gender-related differences in treatment outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The Spine Journal, 3, 197–203.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Berkeley, K. (1997). Sex differences in pain. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 20, 371–380.CrossRef
52.
Ciaramella, A., Grosso, S., Poli, P., Gioia, A., Inghirami, S., & Massimetti, G. (2004). When pain is not fully explained by organic lesion: A psychiatric perspective on chronic pain patients. European Journal of Pain, 8, 13–22.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Crook, J., Milner, R., Schultz, Z., & Stringer, B. (2002). Determinants of occupational disability following a low back injury: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 12, 277–295.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Linton, S. (2000). A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine, 25, 1148–1156.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Edwards, L., Pearce, S., Turner-Stokes, L., & Jones, A. (1994). The pain beliefs questionnaire: An investigation of beliefs in the causes and consequences of pain. Pain, 51, 267–272.CrossRef
56.
Crombez, G., Vlaeyen, J., Heuts, P., & Lysens, R. (1999). Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself: Evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability. Pain, 80, 329–339.
57.
Schultz, I., Crook, J., Meloche, G., Berkowitz, J., Milner, R., & Zuberbier, O. (2004). Psychosocial factors predictive of occupational low back disability: Towards development of a return-to-work model. Pain, 107, 77–85.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Baird, A. (2004). The impact of pain beliefs and fear avoidant behaviours on perceived pain and physical capabilities—a preliminary study. Presented at the 37th Pain Society Annual Scientific Meeting, Manchester, UK.
59.
Turner, J., Franklin, G., Heagerty, P., Wu, R., Egan, K., Fulton-Kehoe, D., Gluck, J., & Wickizer, T. (2004). The association between pain and disability. Pain, 112, 307–314.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Evaluation of a Multi-disciplinary Back Pain Rehabilitation Programme—Individual and Group Perspectives
Auteurs
Andrew Baird
Lisa Worral
Cheryl Haslam
Roger Haslam
Publicatiedatum
01-04-2008
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2008
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9315-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2008

Quality of Life Research 3/2008 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores

OriginalPaper

Aggregated measures of functional disability in a nationally representative sample of disabled people: analysis of dimensionality according to gender and severity of disability

Brief Communication

The adaptation into Spanish of the Coddington Life Events Scales (CLES)

OriginalPaper

Impact of oral health status on oral health-related quality of life in Chinese hospitalised geriatric patients

OriginalPaper

Physical activity, quality of life, and weight status in overweight children

OriginalPaper

EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: reliability, validity and responsiveness