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?
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Pain interventions are likely to be more cost-effective if the participants in that intervention return to work.
“Pain interventions are likely to be more cost-effective if the participants in that intervention return to work.4”
From Productivity outcomes from chronic pain management interventions in the working age population; a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
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