Generic self-management programs aim to facilitate behavioural adjustment and therefore have considerable potential for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Our main objective was to collect and synthesize all data on the effectiveness of generic self-management interventions for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain in terms of physical function, self-efficacy, pain intensity and physical activity. Our secondary objective was to describe the content of these interventions, by means of classification according to the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase and Psycinfo for eligible studies. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias were assessed by two researchers independently. Meta-analyses were only performed if the studies were sufficiently homogeneous and GRADE was used to determine the quality of evidence. We identified 20 randomized controlled trials that compared a self-management intervention to any type of control group. For post-intervention results, there was moderate quality evidence of a statistically significant but clinically unimportant effect for physical function and pain intensity, both favouring the self-management group. At follow-up, there was moderate quality evidence of a small clinically insignificant effect for self-efficacy, favouring the self-management group. All other comparisons did not indicate an effect. Classification of the behaviour change techniques showed large heterogeneity across studies. These results indicate that generic self-management interventions have a marginal benefit for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain in the short-term for physical function and pain intensity and for self-efficacy in the long-term, and vary considerably with respect to intervention content. Significance: This study contributes to a growing body of evidence that generic self-management interventions have limited effectiveness for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Furthermore, this study has identified substantial differences in both content and delivery mode across self-management interventions.
LINK
The use of the biopsychosocial model in primary care physiotherapy for chronic pain is far from the recommendations given in research and current guidelines. To understand why physiotherapists have difficulty implementing a biopsychosocial approach, more insight is needed on the barriers and facilitators. This scoping review aimed to investigate and map these barriers and facilitators that physiotherapists working in primary care reportedly face when treating patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain from a biopsychosocial perspective. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC) and the grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they investigated the experiences of physiotherapists in the treatment of chronic pain from a biopsychosocial perspective in primary care. Extracted data were discussed and sub grouped in themes following a qualitative content analysis approach. To align with current use of theories on behavior change, the resulting themes were compared to the Theoretical Domains Framework. After screening, twenty-four studies were included. Eight groups of barriers and facilitators were identified, thematically clustered in six themes: knowledge, skills, and attitudes; environmental context and resources; role clarity; confidence; therapeutic alliance; and patient expectations. The results of this review can be used to inform the development of implementation programs.
LINK
Background and objectives: Although Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment (IMPT) programmes share a biopsychosocial approach to increase the wellbeing of patients with chronic pain, substantial variation in content and duration have been reported. In addition, it is unclear to what extent any favourable health outcomes are maintained over time. Therefore, our first aim was to identify and analyse the change over time of patient-related outcome measures in cohorts of patients who participated in IMPT programmes. Our second aim was to acquire insight into the heterogeneity of IMPT programmes. Databases and data treatment: The study protocol was registered in Prospero under CRD42018076093. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Cinahl from inception to May 2020. All study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were independently performed by two researchers. Study cohorts were eligible if they included adult patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain for at least 3 months. We assessed the change over time, by calculating pre-post, post-follow-up and pre-follow-up contrasts for seven different patient-reported outcome domains. To explore the variability between the IMPT programmes, we summarized the patient characteristics and treatment programmes using the intervention description and replication checklist. Results: The majority of the 72 included patient cohorts significantly improved during treatment. Importantly, this improvement was generally maintained at follow-up. In line with our expectations and with previous studies, we observed substantial methodological and statistical heterogeneity. Conclusions: This study shows that participation in an IMPT programme is associated with considerable improvements in wellbeing that are generally maintained at follow-up. The current study also found substantial heterogeneity in dose and treatment content, which suggests different viewpoints on how to optimally design an IMPT programme. Significance: The current study provides insight into the different existing approaches regarding the dose and content of IMPT programs. This analysis contributes to an increased understanding of the various approaches by which a biopsychosocial perspective on chronic pain can be translated to treatment programs. Furthermore, despite theoretical and empirical assertions regarding the difficulty to maintain newly learned health behaviors over time, the longitudinal analysis of health outcomes did not find a relapse pattern for patients who participated in IMPT programs.
LINK
Aanleiding Hoe effectief zijn de chronische pijnprogramma's, vooral op de lage termijn? Die vraag leeft bij een aantal revalidatiecentra in Nederland. De revalidatiecentra behandelen patiënten met chronische musculoskeletale pijn. Veel van de patiënten hebben of krijgen te maken met persoonlijk en maatschappelijk disfunctioneren. Programma's zijn met name gericht op het beïnvloeden en veranderen van het gedrag van patiënten, zodat ze in hun dagelijks leven beter met de pijn om kunnen gaan. Zelfmanagement speelt daarbij een belangrijke rol. Echter, patiënten met chronische pijnklachten zijn lang niet altijd trouw aan hun therapie en gaan ook niet altijd goed om met een terugval. Hulpverleners in chronische-pijnbehandelteams van revalidatiecentra en ziekenhuizen constateren dat een deel van hun patiënten zelfmanagement niet volledig kunnen bestendigen in het dagelijks leven. Doelstellingen Vanuit de beroepspraktijk is de volgende vraag geformuleerd: wat is het langetermijneffect van een chronische-pijnprogramma en zijn er strategieën te ontwikkelen om een eventuele terugval te voorkomen? Deze vraag is leidend in het RAAK-project SOLACE. Het start met een onderzoek naar het langetermijneffect van een revalidatieprogramma en meet de terugval van patiënten die een programma hebben gevolgd. Daarna worden strategieën ontwikkeld die gericht zijn op gedragsbehoud. Professionals, onderzoekers, studenten en docenten werken hierbij nauw samen. Om de effectiviteit van de strategieën in de praktijk te testen, wordt een pilot uitgevoerd. Boogde resultaten Het SOLACE-project verbindt het onderwijs- en onderzoeksveld met de beroepspraktijk door het samen ontwikkelen van strategieën die het vermogen tot zelfmanagement van patiënten met chronische pijn vergroten. Verspreiding van de opgedane kennis en ervaring vindt plaats via de verschillende projectpartners en hun netwerken. Denk aan intercollegiaal overleg, stages en fysiotherapeutische en pijngenootschappen. Daarnaast zullen de resultaten geïmplementeerd worden in het onderwijs van het Instituut voor Bewegingsstudies van de Hogeschool Utrecht.
