Cited by 38Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-being

A 7-year follow-up of multidisciplinary rehabilitation among chronic neck and back pain patients. Is sick leave outcome dependent on psychologically derived patient groups?

Bergström, Gunnar, Bergström, Cecilia, Hagberg, Jan, Bodin, Lennart, Jensen, Irene·2010·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

A valid method for classifying chronic pain patients into more homogenous groups could be useful for treatment planning, that is, which treatment is effective for which patient, and as a marker when evaluating treatment outcome. One instrument that has been used to derive subgroups of patients is the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate a classification method based on the Swedish version of the MPI, the MPI-S, to predict sick leave among chronic neck and back pain patients for a period of 7 years after vocational rehabilitation. As hypothesized, dysfunctional patients (DYS), according to the MPI-S, showed a higher amount of sickness absence and disability pension expressed in days than adaptive copers (AC) during the 7-years follow-up period, even when adjusting for sickness absence prior to rehabilitation (355.8days, 95% confidence interval, 71.7; 639.9). Forty percent of DYS patients and 26.7% of AC patients received disability pension during the follow-up period. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Further analyses showed that the difference between patient groups was most pronounced among patients with more than 60days of sickness absence prior to rehabilitation. Cost-effectiveness calculations indicated that the DYS patients showed an increase in production loss compared to AC patients. The present study yields support for the prognostic value of this subgroup classification method concerning long-term outcome on sick leave following this type of vocational rehabilitation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.06.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 25 · Cited by 38

Authors
Bergström, G., Bergström, C., Hagberg, J., Bodin, L., & Jensen, I.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Bergström, Cecilia
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-04
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
426-433
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W2072727934
Cited by
38
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
chronic neck pain, chronic back pain, sick leave, vocational rehabilitation, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, Multidimensional Pain Inventory, dysfunctional coping, adaptive coping, disability pension, long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, production losses
MeSH terms
Absenteeism, Adult, Back Pain, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Costs and Cost Analysis, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Income, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Patient Care Team, Pensions, Prognosis, Risk, Sweden, Treatment Outcome, Sick Leave, Neck Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review