IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i6p5051-d1095812.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Primary Care—A Cohort Study from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP)

Author

Listed:
  • Lukasz Mateusz Falkhamn

    (Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Medicine, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Gunilla Stenberg

    (Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Paul Enthoven

    (Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Britt-Marie Stålnacke

    (Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Medicine, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden)

Abstract

Chronic pain is a major public health issue. Mounting evidence suggests that interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation programs (IMMRPs) performed in specialist pain care are an effective treatment for patients with chronic pain, but the effects of such treatment if performed in primary care settings have been less studied. The aims of this pragmatic study were to (1) describe characteristics of patients participating in IMMRPs in primary care; (2) examine whether IMMRPs in primary care improve pain, disability, quality of life, and sick leave 1-year post discharge in patients with chronic pain; and (3) investigate if outcomes differ between women and men. Data from 744 (645 women and 99 men, age range 18–65 years) patients with non-malignant chronic pain included in the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation Primary Care were used to describe patient characteristics and changes in health and sick leave. At 1-year follow-up, the patients had improved significantly ( p < 0.01) in all health outcome measures and had reduced sick leave except in men, where no significant change was shown in physical activity level. This study indicates that MMRPs in primary care improved pain and physical and emotional health and reduced sick leave, which was maintained at the 1-year follow-up.

Suggested Citation

  • Lukasz Mateusz Falkhamn & Gunilla Stenberg & Paul Enthoven & Britt-Marie Stålnacke, 2023. "Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Primary Care—A Cohort Study from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:6:p:5051-:d:1095812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/6/5051/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/6/5051/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, Paul & Sutton, Matthew, 1997. "Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1519-1530, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    2. Katherine Stevens & Christopher McCabe & John Brazier, 2007. "Response to Shmueli," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(7), pages 759-761, July.
    3. Katherine J. Stevens & Christopher J. McCabe & John E. Brazier, 2006. "Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 527-533, May.
    4. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    5. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.
    6. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    7. Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences ‘well constructed’?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48, January.
    8. Leslie A. Lenert & Jonathan R. Treadwell, 1999. "Effects on Preferences of Violations of Procedural Invariance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 473-481, October.
    9. Louise Longworth & Stirling Bryan, 2003. "An empirical comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D in liver transplant patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1061-1067, December.
    10. José M. Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, "undated". "Measuring Changes in Health Capital," Working Papers 2005-15, FEDEA.
    11. Stevens, Katherine & McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2007. "Multi-attribute utility function or statistical inference models: A comparison of health state valuation models using the HUI2 health state classification system," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 992-1002, September.
    12. Carol A.E. Nickerson, 1999. "Assessing Convergent Validity of Health-state Utilities Obtained Using Different Scaling Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 487-498, October.
    13. George Tomlinson & Karen E. Bremner & Paul Ritvo & Gary Naglie & Murray D. Krahn, 2012. "Development and Validation of a Utility Weighting Function for the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 11-30, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:6:p:5051-:d:1095812. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.