du.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Predictors of multidisciplinary rehabilitation outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Karolinska Institutet.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8307-259x
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Systematic Reviews, E-ISSN 2046-4053, ISSN 2046-4053, Vol. 6, no 1, article id 199Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major public health problem. Early prediction for optimal treatment results has received growing attention, but there is presently a lack of evidence regarding what information such proactive management should be based on. This study protocol, therefore, presents our planned systematic review and meta-analysis on important predictive factors for health and work-related outcomes following multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MDR) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS: We aim to perform a synthesis of the available evidence together with a meta-analysis of published peer-reviewed original research that includes predictive factors preceding MDR. Included are prospective studies of adults with benign, chronic (> 3 months) musculoskeletal pain diagnoses who have taken part in MDR. In the studies, associations between personal and rehabilitation-based factors and the outcomes of interest are reported. Outcome domains are pain, physical functioning including health-related quality of life, and work ability with follow-ups of 6 months or more. We will use a broad, explorative approach to any presented predictive factors (demographic, symptoms-related, physical, psychosocial, work-related, and MDR-related) and these will be analyzed through (a) narrative synthesis for each outcome domain and (b) if sufficient studies are available, a quantitative synthesis in which variance-weighted pooled proportions will be computed using a random effects model for each outcome domain. The strength of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

DISCUSSION: The strength of this systematic review is that it aims for a meta-analysis of prospective cohort or randomized controlled studies by performing an extensive search of multiple databases, using an explorative study approach to predictive factors, rather than building on single predictor impact on the outcome or on predefined hypotheses. In this way, an overview of factors central to MDR outcome can be made and will help strengthen the evidence base and inform a wide readership including health care practitioners and policymakers.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016025339.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 6, no 1, article id 199
Keywords [en]
Chronic musculoskeletal pain, Literature review, Meta-analysis, Multidisciplinary rehabilitation, Prognostic factors, Treatment outcome
National Category
Clinical Medicine
Research subject
Health and Welfare
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:du-26433DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0598-0ISI: 000453154500199PubMedID: 29020989Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85030844165OAI: oai:DiVA.org:du-26433DiVA, id: diva2:1150141
Available from: 2017-10-18 Created: 2017-10-18 Last updated: 2020-03-03Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic pain: prognostic factors and effectiveness
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Interdisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic pain: prognostic factors and effectiveness
2019 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation (IMPR) is currently considered best practice for combatting chronic pain. However, it is believed that health-related outcomes could be improved with more adequately tailored treatment programs, but consensus of what grounds these adaptations should be based on is yet to be reached. Well-powered evaluations of naturalistic, real-world practices provide an evidence base for the evaluation of important characteristics that may facilitate the informed development of IMPR. The aim of the present work was to meta-synthesize existing evidence and add new data to the body of published evidence on prognostic factors for a positive outcome in patients receiving rehabilitation for chronic pain. An additional aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of different IMPR program durations on health-related quality of life in this major patient group.

Methods: Published international evidence of prognostic factors for physical functioning after IMPR was evaluated through a systematic review and meta-analyses (Study I), followed by the investigation of the inter-rater reliability of the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool (QUIPS), used in the Risk of Bias assessment (Study II). Prognostic factors (Study III) and effectiveness (Study IV) of Swedish pain specialist IMPR on physical and mental functioning and related measures of disease impact were investigated using large-scale nationwide data obtained from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation.

Results: Meta analyses showed, with moderate to low levels of evidence, that better physical functioning at follow-up was predicted by high levels of self-reported functioning, low levels of emotional distress and cognitive-behavioral risk factors, and high levels of cognitive- behavioral protective factors. Pain-related factors (intensity and chronicity) were not associated. Weak to moderate inter-rater agreement emerged for QUIPS, and suggestions for improving the inter-rater agreement and functionality were presented. Swedish registry data showed the most important prognostic factors were retaining a connection with work, having high optimistic treatment expectations, sense of control, and less interference from pain. Pain itself was of secondary significance. Also for improvement of physical functioning, better initial mental wellbeing was of importance, while for mental functioning the opposite emerged. Results on within-group effectiveness showed improvements on all outcomes, while no between-group comparison emerged on short (4-9 wks) vs. moderate (10 wks) vs. long (11-18 wks) IMPR program duration.

In summary, evidence for prognostic factors was identified, providing suggestions for the targeting of modifiable factors in clinics and in future clinical trials. Clearly, the quality assessment of published results needs systematic consensus work between assessors. Work connection, treatment expectations, levels of physical and emotional health, and coping strategies played an important prognostic role but were not consistent for physical and emotional functioning, suggesting a complex prognostic picture for the overall understanding of improvement. Finally, IMPR is effective across a biopsychosocial specter, but treatment duration seems not to play an important role.

Abstract [sv]

Multimodal smärtrehabilitering (MMR) anses vara bästa praxis för behandling av kronisk smärta. De påvisade effekterna på olika (biopsykosociala) hälsorelaterade resultat är dock suboptimala. Det antas att rehabiliteringsresultat kan förbättras med mer adekvat anpassade behandlingsprogram, men fortfarande saknas konsensus om vilka faktorer dessa anpassningar bör grundas på. Effektiva utvärderingar av reell klinisk verksamhet kan ge en grund för utvärdering av viktiga egenskaper som kan bidra till utveckling av MMR. Syftet med detta avhandlingsarbete var därför att meta-syntetisera befintlig evidens, och att komplettera med nya primärdata till kunskapsunderlaget om prognostiska faktorer för ett positivt behandlingsutfall hos patienter med kronisk smärta som genomgått rehabilitering. Syftet var vidare att utvärdera effektiviteten av MMR som genomförs med olika behandlingslängd, med avseende på hälsorelaterad livskvalitet i denna omfattande patientgrupp med kronisk smärta.

Publicerade internationella resultat vad gäller prognostiska faktorer för fysisk funktion efter MMR utvärderades genom en systematisk litteraturgranskning och meta-analyser (Studie I). Denna studie följdes av en undersökning av inter-bedömarreliabilitet (tillförlitlighet) för ett nytt kvalitetsbedömnings-instrument avsett för prognostiska studier- ”QUIPS”, ett instrument som används vid bedömning av Risk för Bias (Studie II). Prognostiska faktorer (Studie III) och effektivitet (Studie IV) vid svensk MMR (specialistnivå) med avseende på fysisk och psykisk funktion, samt konsekvenser av smärta, utvärderades med hjälp av omfattande registerdata från Nationella Registret över Smärtrehabilitering, NRS.

Metaanalyser visade, med måttlig till låg evidens, att bättre fysisk funktion vid uppföljning förutspåddes av högre nivåer av självrapporterad funktion, låga nivåer av mental ohälsa, och kognitiva beteende-riskfaktorer samt höga nivåer av skyddande kognitiva beteende-faktorer. Smärtrelaterade faktorer (intensitet och duration) var inte associerade. Överenstämmelse vid Risk för Bias-bedömningar med QUIPS var svag till måttlig, och förslag till att förbättra överrensstämmelse och funktionaliteten presenterades. Svenska registerdata visade att de viktigaste prognostiska faktorerna generellt var att vara i arbete, ha optimistiska behandlingsförväntningar, känsla av kontroll och mindre funktionsstörningar från smärta. Smärta i sig var av sekundär betydelse. För fysisk funktion specifikt var ett gott mentalt välbefinnande av betydelse medan för mental funktion var ett lägre (dåligt) utgångsvärde av betydelse. MMR som helhet var effektiv vid behandlingsuppföljning för alla utfallsvariabler. Ingen skillnad framkom dock vid jämförelse mellan grupper med olika behandlingstid.

Sammanfattningsvis identifierades evidens för att det finns viktiga prognostiska markörer, vilket pekar på modifierbara faktorer användbara i såväl klinisk verksamhet som för framtida randomiserade kliniska studier. Det är tydligt att kvalitetsbedömning av publicerade resultat kräver systematiskt konsensusarbete mellan bedömare. Att vara i arbete, ha positiva behandlingsförväntningar, samt lägre ingångsvärden på de respektive utfallen, fysisk och emotionell hälsa, samt copingstrategier, spelade en viktig roll för det framtidabehandlingsresultatet. Resultaten var dock inte konsekventa för fysisk och emotionell funktion, vilket antyder en komplex prognostisk bild för förståelsen av klinisk förbättring som helhet. MMR är en effektiv behandlingsmetod från ett biopsykosocialt perspektiv, men dess behandlingslängd verkar inte ha någon betydande roll för det framtida behandlingsresultatet.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet, 2019
National Category
Clinical Medicine
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:du-31740 (URN)978-91-7831-510-9 (ISBN)
Available from: 2020-01-28 Created: 2020-01-28 Last updated: 2020-01-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1851 kB)101 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1851 kBChecksum SHA-512
0483b4c417d482e1a3bf91dbc3f25ce25cba02c4572b7b30ff891b63a4f569ec599f0dce7ddba65def56f1ab17d69969ddfe1da4f510a67983f11bfb3787970e
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Tseli, ElenaÄng, Björn

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Tseli, ElenaÄng, Björn
By organisation
Medical Science
In the same journal
Systematic Reviews
Clinical Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 101 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 196 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf