Search

Objective: To investigate outcomes in patients with chronic pain after participation in an interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme with language interpreters, and to investigate the outcomes in women and men separately. Design: Prospective multi-centre cohort study. Patients: Ninety-five patients in Sweden with chronic pain who have insufficient knowledge of the Swedish language. Methods: Duration and intensity of pain, anxiety and depression, health-related quality of life and fear of movement were evaluated before and after the programme. Patients were compared with a reference group comprising Swedish-speaking patients participating in an ordinary interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme. Results: Before the interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme with language interpreters, all variables except pain duration differed significantly to the detriment of the studied group. The studied group showed significant improvements after the interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme with language interpreters, with regards to pain intensity, depression and fear of movement. The reference group improved significantly for all variables. The women in the studied group showed significant improvements for the same variables as the whole group, while the men in the studied group did not improve in any of the variables. Conclusion: This study indicates that patients with chronic pain, and especially women, who have insufficient knowledge of Swedish seem to benefit from participating in an interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme with language interpreters. The result may be of value for the further development of rehabilitation programmes with language interpreters.

Objective: Chronic pain is a common manifestation of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders; thus it is often suggested that patients undergo generic interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation, despite there being little evidence to support this decision. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of standard rehabilitation programmes for chronic pain on patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders, compared with patients with other chronic pain disorders. Subjects: Data, collected between 2008 and 2016, were extracted from a Swedish national registry. The patient data comprised of 406 cases with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or hypermobility spectrum disorders, 784 cases with a whiplash-related diagnosis, 3713 cases with diagnoses relating to spinal pain, and 2880 cases of fibromyalgia. Methods: The differences between groups on key outcome measures from pre- to 1-year follow-up after interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation were analysed using linear mixed effects models. Sensitivity analysis in the form of pattern-mixture modelling was conducted to discern the impact of missing data. Results: No significant differences were found in improvements from pre- to 1-year follow-up for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or hypermobility spectrum disorder compared with other diagnostic groups regarding measures of health-related quality of life, mental health, or fatigue. At follow-up, differences in pain interference (d = –0.34 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] –0.5 to –0.18)), average pain (d = 0.22 (95% CI 0.11–0.62)) and physical functioning (d = 2.19 (95% CI 1.61–2.77)) were detected for the group with spinal-related diagnoses in relation to those with EDS/HSD, largely due to pre-treatment group differences. Sensitivity analysis found little evidence for missing data influencing the results. Conclusion: This study suggests that patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome/hypermobility spectrum disorders may benefit from inclusion in an interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme.

Objectives: To investigate: (i) changes in sick-leave benefits from 1 year prior to multimodal rehabilitation to 1 and 2 years after rehabilitation; (ii) sex differences in sick leave; and (iii) the impact of policy changes on sick leave. Methods: All patients undergoing multimodal rehabilitation registered in a national pain database for 2007-11 (n = 7,297) were linked to the Swedish Social Insurance Agency database. Sick leave was analysed in 3-month periods: T0: 1 year before rehabilitation; T1: before start; T2: 1 year after; and T3: 2 years after rehabilitation. Four sick-leave benefit categories were constructed: no sick leave, part-time sick leave, full-time sick leave, and full-time permanent sick leave. The individual change in sick-leave category at each time-period was analysed. Results: Sick-leave benefits increased from T0 to T1 (p < 0.001) and decreased from T1 to T3 (p < 0.001). Reductions were significant for both men and women from T1 to T3, but men had less sick-leave benefits at T2 and T3. Positive changes in sick-leave benefits at T2 and T3 were found both prior to and after policy changes, with less sick-leave benefits after policy changes at all time-points. Conclusion: Multimodal rehabilitation may positively influence sick-leave benefits for patients with chronic pain, regardless of their sick-leave situation, sex or policy changes.

Objective: To describe the organization, content and dosage of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation, and the differences in degree of severity of problems of patients admitted to clinical units reporting to a Swedish national quality pain registry, grouped according to unit size and possible affiliation with a university hospital. Methods: Reports from 31 out of 39 clinical units in Sweden, on inclusion processes, organization, content and dosage of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation, and patient-reported data from a Swedish national quality pain registry at assessment for interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation were analysed. Results: the number of patients treated annually at each unit ranged from 3 to 340. In 17 units, teams comprised 5 professionals. Dosage of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation ranged from 20–180 h per patient in total. Patients at the university-hospital units scored the highest levels of symptoms and lowest levels of health-related quality of life. Units used similar sets of inclusion criteria, and several treatments, such as education, self-training and psychological interventions, were used by most units. Conclusion: When interpreting outcome data from registries, aspects other than rehabilitation outcomes must be considered. The interpretation of outcomes from quality registries would be facilitated if data, in addition to assessments and patient-reported outcomes, also includes standardized descriptions of the reporting clinical units.