Search

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.

Background and aims Medical students receive training in the management of chronic pain, but the training is often suboptimal. Considering that the basis for physician's knowledge is their medical education, it is important to explore the attitudes and beliefs of medical students with respect both to chronic pain management and to their views on current pain education. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare Swedish and Australian medical student's attitudes and beliefs about patients with chronic pain, and their perceptions regarding their chronic pain management education. Methods An online survey was conducted with final year Australian and Swedish medical students from two different universities between December 2016 and February 2017. Attitudes and beliefs towards chronic pain patients were measured using the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Scale (HC-PAIRS). A thematic analysis was conducted on open end questions regarding their views on their education and important skills for chronic pain management. Results A total of 57 Swedish and 26 Australian medical students completed the HC-PAIRS scale. The Swedish medical students showed statistically significantly lower total mean HC-PAIRS scores compared to Australian medical students (46 and 51, respectively). Australian students had statistically significantly higher scores than the Swedish students for two of four factors: functional expectations and need for cure, whereas no significant differences were seen for the factors social expectations or for projected cognition. From the open end questions it was evident that final year medical students are knowledgeable about key chronic pain items described in clinical guidelines. However, both cohorts described their chronic pain training as poor and in need of improvement in several areas such as more focus on the biopsychosocial model, working in multidisciplinary teams, seeing chronic pain patients and pharmacological training. Conclusions Attitudes and beliefs are formed during medical education, and our study exploring attitudes of medical students towards chronic pain and how it is taught have provided valuable information. Our survey provided detailed and cohesive suggestions for education improvement that also are in line with current clinical guidelines. This study indicates that the Swedish final year students have a more positive attitude towards chronic pain patients compared to their Australian counterparts. The majority of students in both cohorts perceived chronic pain management education in need of improvement. Implications This study highlights several areas of interest that warrant further investigation, for example, the impact of a changed medical curriculum in alignment with these clinical guidelines requested by students in this survey, and correspondingly if their attitudes towards chronic pain patients can be improved through education. Further, we conclude that it would be valuable to align the implementation of the HC-PAIRS instrument in order to achieve comparable results between future studies.

Objective: To evaluate patient-reported outcome measures in 2 different multimodal pain rehabilitation programmes and to determine whether outcomes are related to sex or age at 1-year follow-up., Design: Longitudinal retrospective study., Subjects: Patients who had participated in 1 of 2 multimodal pain rehabilitation programmes at 2 rehabilitation centres. A total of 356 women and 83 men, divided into 3 age groups., Methods: Data from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation regarding activity and physical functions, pain intensity, health status and emotional functions analysed with descriptive statistics., Results: Significant improvements in activity and physical functions, pain intensity and emotional func-tions were found in both multimodal pain rehabilitation programmes. Women improved more than men. The older group improved in all emotional functions (depression, anxiety, mental component summary), while the younger group improved only in depression. The intermediate group improved in all variables except anxiety., Conclusion: Patients improved regardless of the design of the multimodal pain rehabilitation programme. Although only small differences were found between men and women and among the 3 age groups in terms of the measured variables, these findings may have clinical relevance and indicate a need to vary the design of the interventions in multimodal rehabilitation programmes for these subgroups.

Objective: To explore patient experiences of participating in multimodal pain rehabilitation in primary care., Subjects: Twelve former patients (7 women and 5 men) in multimodal rehabilitation in primary care were interviewed about their experiences of multimodal rehabilitation., Methods: The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis., Results: Analysis resulted in 4 categories: (i) from discredited towards obtaining redress; (ii) from uncertainty towards knowledge; (iii) from loneliness towards togetherness; and (iv) "acceptance of pain": an ongoing process. The results show that having obtained redress, to obtain knowledge about chronic pain, and to experience fellowship with others with the same condition were helpful in the acceptance process. However, there were patients who found it difficult to reconcile themselves with a life with chronic pain after multimodal rehabilitation. To find what was "wrong" and to have a medical diagnosis and cure were important., Conclusion: Patients in primary care multimodal rehabilitation experience a complex, ongoing process of accepting chronic pain. Four important categories were described. These findings will help others to understand the experience and perspective of patients with chronic pain who engage in multimodal rehabilitation.

Objective: To analyse patient and professional perceptions about (in)equity of care and rehabilitation of chronic pain patients from primary health care to assessment at a specialty rehabilitation clinic., Setting and Methods: This qualitative study consists one focus group interview with eight general practitioners who refer patients to pain rehabilitation clinics, 10 individual interviews with patients who were assessed at a pain rehabilitation clinic and seven interviews with professionals participating in multimodal assessment teams at a pain rehabilitation clinic. Interview analysis was conducted by the grounded theory method., Results: The core category Via Dolorosa, the way of suffering and pain, captured how gender and sociocultural context may contribute to advantages and disadvantages during patient journeys from primary health care to a pain rehabilitation clinic. Patients and professionals perceived pain as a low-ranking illness, and women and men used different gendered strategies to legitimise the pain and to be taken seriously. Being 'a proper patient ready to change' and having 'likeness' between patients and professionals were viewed as advantageous in rehabilitation of pain patients. Patients with higher educational levels were perceived as easier to interact with and had better access to health care. Professional thoughts about gender norms influenced the rehabilitation options. The rehabilitation programme was seen by several professionals to be better suited for women than men, which could lead to unequal care., Conclusion: From an equity and gender perspective, our study highlights the complexity in rehabilitation of chronic pain patients - both from patient and professional perspectives. Awareness of gendered and the biased preconceptions and norms is crucial when professionals struggle to offer equitable health care and rehabilitation., (© 2016 Nordic College of Caring Science.)

Objective: To determine whether self-reported pain measures are associated with selection for multimodal or multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MMR) and whether this selection is influenced by sex., Design: Cross-sectional cohort study., Subjects: A total of 1,226 women and 464 men with chronic pain conditions from 2 university hospitals., Methods: Drawing from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP), data on pain, psychological symptoms, function, health, and activity/participation were collected. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate association of pain measures with selection for MMR (no/yes) after multidisciplinary assessment. Covariates were: age, educational level, anxiety, depression, working status, and several pain measures., Results: High pain intensity in the previous week (odds ratio (OR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.99) and high pain severity (Multidimensional Pain Inventory) (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.74-0.95) were negatively associated with selection for MMR, whereas higher number of pain quadrants was positively associated with selection for MMR. Similar results were obtained for women, but none of the measures was predictive for men., Conclusion: This practice-based study showed that higher scores on self-reported pain were not associated with selection for MMR, and in women there was a negative association for higher pain intensity and pain severity. Thus, other factors than pain determine whether patients are selected for MMR.

Background: For patients with chronic pain, the heterogeneity of clinical presentations makes it difficult to identify patients who would benefit from multimodal rehabilitation programs (MMRP). Yet, there is limited knowledge regarding the predictors of MMRP's outcomes. This study identifies predictors of outcome of MMRPs at a 12-month follow-up (FU-12) based on data from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP)., Methods: Patients with chronic pain from two clinical departments in Sweden completed the SQRP questionnaires-background, pain characteristics, psychological symptoms, function, activity/participation, health and quality of life-on three occasions: 1) during their first visit; 2) immediately after the completion of their MMRP; and 3) 12 months after completing the MMRP (n = 227). During the FU-12, the patients also retrospectively reported their global impressions of any changes in their perception of pain and their ability to handle their life situation in general., Results: Significant improvements were found for pain, psychological symptoms, activity/participation, health, and quality of life aspects with low/medium strong effects. A general pattern was observed from the analyses of the changes from baseline to FU-12; the largest improvements in outcomes were significantly associated with poor situations according to their respective baseline scores. Although significant regressors of the investigated outcomes were found, the significant predictors were weak and explained a minor part of the variation in outcomes (15-25%). At the FU-12, 53.6% of the patients reported that their pain had decreased and 80.1% reported that their life situation in general had improved. These improvements were associated with high education, low pain intensity, high health level, and work importance (only pain perception). The explained variations were low (9-11%)., Conclusions: Representing patients in real-world clinical settings, this study confirmed systematic reviews that outcomes of MMRP are associated with broad positive effects. A mix of background and baseline variables influenced the outcomes investigated, but the explained variations in outcomes were low. There is still a need to develop standardized and relatively simple outcomes that can be used to evaluate MMRP in trials, in clinical evaluations at group level, and for individual patients.

Objective: To examine potential gender bias in recommendations of further examination and rehabilitation in primary care for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain after an interdisciplinary team assessment., Methods: The population consisted of consecutive patients (n = 589 women, 262 men) referred during a 3-year period from primary healthcare for assessment by interdisciplinary teams at a pain specialist rehabilitation clinic. Patient data were collected from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation. The outcome was defined as the examination or rehabilitation that was specified in the patient's record., Results: Men had a significantly higher likelihood than women of being recommended physiotherapy and radiological examination, and the gender difference was not explained by confounding variables and covariates (age, marital status, ethnicity, education, working status, pain severity, pain interference, pain sites, anxiety and depression). There was no significant gender difference in recommendations to treatment by specialist physician, occupational therapist, psychologist or social worker., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the interdisciplinary teams in specialist healthcare may discriminate against women with chronic pain when physiotherapy and radiological investigation are recommended. The team's choice of recommendations might be influenced by gendered attitudes, but this field of research needs to be studied further.

Dysfunction in executive functions is common among patients with chronic pain. However, the relationships between executive functioning and pain management have not been extensively studied. In this study, 189 outpatients (160 women, 29 men; mean age 33.15) with chronic pain underwent an extensive neuropsychological assessment, including several tests of executive functions. In addition, all participants completed self-assessment questionnaires regarding pain and interference of pain in everyday life. After adjusting for effects of age, education, and depression, several aspects of executive functioning were significantly associated with self-assessed everyday interference of pain (rs = 0.13–0.22, all ps < 0.05). This indicates that lower performance on tests of executive functioning was significantly associated with a higher degree of pain interference and a lower degree of life control. Pain characteristics such as pain intensity, pain duration, and pain spreading were not associated with executive functioning. These results suggest that preserved executive functions are related to better coping with pain, but not directly to the pain itself, in patients with chronic pain. Depression was also associated with self-management of pain, indicating that patients with lower executive functioning in combination with depression may need special attention during rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic pain education is an essential determinant for optimal chronic pain management. Given that attitudes and preferences are involved in making treatment decisions, identifying which factors are most influential to final year medical students' and general practitioners' (GPs) chronic pain management choices is of importance. This study investigates Swedish and Australian students' preferences with respect to a chronic pain condition, using a best–worst scaling (BWS) experiment, which is designed to rank alternatives. Methods: BWS, a stated-preference method grounded in random utility theory, was used to explore the importance of factors influencing chronic pain management. Results: All three cohorts considered the patients' pain description and previous treatment experience as the most important factors in making treatment decisions, whereas their demographics and voices or facial expressions while describing their pain were considered least important. Factors such as social support, patient preferences and treatment adherence were, however, disregarded by all cohorts in favour of pain assessment factors such as pain ratings, description and history. Swedish medical students and GPs show very high correlation in their choices, although the GPs consider their professional experience as more important compared to the students. Conclusion: This study suggests that the relative importance of treatment factors is cemented early and thus underline the critical importance of improving pain curricula during undergraduate medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-synthesis to analyze qualitative research findings and thereby understand patients’ experiences of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) and the injury-recovery process. Materials and methods: A qualitative meta-synthesis, which is an interpretive integration of existing qualitative findings, was performed. The databases PubMed, PsychINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. The Critical Assessment Skills Programme was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: Four studies were included. The synthesis resulted in several codes, 6 categories, and 3 themes (distancing from normalcy, self-efficacy in controlling the life situation after the injury, and readjustment and acceptance) that described the participants’ pain beliefs, their WAD-related life situation and their future expectations and acceptance. Changes in self-image were difficult to cope with and likely led to perceived stigmatization. Struggling with feelings of loss of control appeared to lead to low confidence and insecurity. Focusing on increasing knowledge and understanding the pain and its consequences were believed to lead to better strategies for handling the situation. Furthermore, recapturing life roles, including returning to work, was challenging, but an optimistic outlook reinforced symptom improvements and contributed to feelings of happiness. Conclusion: The results of the present study provide a comprehensive understanding of patients’ complex, multifaceted experiences of WAD, and the injury-recovery process. The findings can guide us in the development of new ways to evaluate and manage WAD. The results also indicate that a more patient-centered approach is needed to determine the depth and breadth of each patient’s problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose:To explore professional perspectives on how to start and work with multimodal pain rehabilitation within primary healthcare. Methods:Fourteen healthcare professionals (11 women, 3 men) were individually interviewed about their experiences of starting and working with multimodal pain. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed by qualitative content analysis. This study was part of a larger project, which aimed at evaluating multimodal pain rehabilitation in primary care. Results:The analysis resulted in six categories. Two categories were about management engagement:putting the focus on rehabilitationandcreating appropriate conditions.Three were about professional engagement:importance of driving spirits, creating a program – a process,andgood teamwork – not a coincidence.The last category was about professional gain from multimodal rehabilitation (MMR):team work is enriching. Conclusions:To enable implementation of MMR in primary care, managers on all organizational levels must take responsibility for allowing rehabilitation to be a priority. A driving spirit among the professionals facilitates the start, but the entire team is important when processing a program. Creating good teamwork requires hard work, e.g., negotiations for consensus about rehabilitation, and assumption of responsibility by each team member. Collaboration between professionals was perceived to strengthen and enhance knowledge about the patients.Implications for rehabilitationMuch can be gained from conducting multimodal pain rehabilitation in primary care.Front line managers and those at other organizational levels must prioritize and create appropriate conditions to facilitate multimodal pain rehabilitation in primary care.Creation of an effective multimodal rehabilitation team requires that each team member takes responsibility, drops the focus on individual rehabilitation, seek member consensus about the content of the rehabilitation, and confer equal worth to each team member.The process of creating a program can be facilitated, especially at the beginning, if the team is supported by speciality pain clinics or more experienced teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is a need for tools addressing gender inequality in the everyday clinical work in health care. The aim of our paper was to develop a tool for increasing the awareness of gendered and intersectional processes in clinical assessment of patients, based on a study of pain rehabilitation. Methods: In the overarching project named “Equal care in rehabilitation” we used multiple methods (both quantitative and qualitative) in five sub studies. With a novel approach we used Grounded Theory in order to synthesize the results from our sub studies, in order to develop the gender equality tool. The gender equality tool described and developed in this article is thus based on results from sub studies about the processes of assessment and selection of patients in pain rehabilitation. Inspired by some questions in earlier tools, we posed open ended questions and inductively searched for findings and concepts relating to gendered and social selection processes in pain rehabilitation, in each of our sub studies. Through this process, the actual gender equality tool was developed as 15 questions about the process of assessing and selecting patients to pain rehabilitation. As a more comprehensive way of understanding the tool, we performed a final step of the GT analyses. Here we synthesized the results of the tool into a comprehensive model with two dimensions in relation to several possible discrimination axes. Results: The process of assessing and selecting patients was visualized as a funnel, a top down process governed by gendered attitudes, rules and structures. We found that the clinicians judged inner and outer characteristics and status of patients in a gendered and intersectional way in the process of clinical decision-making which thus can be regarded as (potentially) biased with regard to gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity and age. Implications: The clinical implications of our tool are that the tool can be included in the systematic routine of clinical assessment of patients for both awareness raising and as a base for avoiding gender bias in clinical decision-making. The tool could also be used in team education for health professionals as an instrument for critical reflection on gender bias. Conclusions: Thus, tools for clinical assessment can be developed from empirical studies in various clinical settings. However, such a micro-level approach must be understood from a broader societal perspective including gender relations on both the macro- and the meso-level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a lack of research about a potential education-related bias in assessment of patients with chronic pain. The aim of this study was to analyze whether low-educated men and women with chronic pain were less often selected to multidisciplinary rehabilitation than those with high education. Methods: The population consisted of consecutive patients (n = 595 women, 266 men) referred during a three-year period from mainly primary health care centers for a multidisciplinary team assessment at a pain rehabilitation clinic at a university hospital in Northern Sweden. Patient data were collected from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation National Pain Register. The outcome variable was being selected by the multidisciplinary team assessment to a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. The independent variables were: sex, age, born outside Sweden, education, pain severity as well as the hospital, anxiety and depression scale (HADS). Results: Low-educated women were less often selected to multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs than high-educated women (OR 0.55, CI 0.30–0.98), even after control for age, being born outside Sweden, pain intensity and HADS. No significant findings were found when comparing the results between high- and low-educated men. Conclusion: Our findings can be interpreted as possible discrimination against low-educated women with chronic pain in hospital referrals to pain rehabilitation. There is a need for more gender-theoretical research emphasizing the importance of taking several power dimensions into account when analyzing possible bias in health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Studies have shown that pain acceptance strategies related to psychological flexibility are important in the presence of chronic musculoskeletal pain. However, the predictors of these strategies have not been studied extensively in patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD).Purpose: The purpose of this study was to predict chronic pain acceptance and engagement in activities at 1-year follow-up with pain intensity, fear of movement, perceived responses from significant others, outcome expectancies, and demographic variables in patients with WAD before and after multimodal rehabilitation (MMR).Study Design: The design of this investigation was a cohort study with 1-year postrehabilitation follow-up.Study Setting: The subjects participated in MMR at a Swedish rehabilitation clinic during 2009-2015.Patient Sample: The patients had experienced a whiplash trauma (WAD grade I-II) and were suffering from pain and reduced functionality. A total of 386 participants were included: 297 fulfilled the postrehabilitation measures, and 177 were followed up at 1 year after MMR.Outcome Measures: Demographic variables, pain intensity, fear of movement, perceived responses from significant others, and outcome expectations were measured at the start and after MMR. Chronic pain acceptance and engagement in activities were measured at follow-up.Methods: The data were obtained from a Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRPR).Results: Outcome expectancies of recovery, supporting and distracting responses of significant others, and fear of (re)injury and movement before MMR were significant predictors of engagement in activities at follow-up. Pain intensity and fear of (re)injury and movement after MMR significantly predicted engagement in activities at follow-up. Supporting responses of significant others and fear of (re)injury and movement before MMR were significant predictors of pain acceptance at the 1-year follow-up. Solicitous responses of significant others and fear of (re)injury and movement at postrehabilitation significantly predicted pain acceptance at follow-up.Conclusion: For engagement in activities and pain acceptance, the fear of movement appears to emerge as the strongest predictor, but patients' perceived reactions from their spouses need to be considered in planning the management of WAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]