Long-term, non-specific spinal pain: reliable and valid subgroups of patients
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify reliable and valid subgroups of spinal pain patients, using data from the Swedish version of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI-S). A second aim was to test the generalisability of the three patient profiles described in earlier studies on the MPI ("adaptive coper", "dysfunctional" and "interpersonally distressed" patients). The study base consisted of two samples of individuals suffering from long-term, non-specific spinal pain and the results were validated across these samples. Cluster analysis was used to detect distinct groups of patients and the validity of these subgroups was evaluated on variables not used to generate the cluster solution. One subgroup was characterised by lower pain severity, lower interference with everyday activities, lower affective distress and higher life control than the other two subgroups. This patient profile was similar to the MPI adaptive coper patients. A second subgroup resembled the dysfunctional patient profile, thus displaying a worse adjustment to chronic pain than the AC patients. The third patient group reported significantly lower levels of social support from "significant others" than the other subgroups. This patient profile was similar to that of the interpersonally distressed patient group. Taken together, the results support the reliability, validity and generalisability of three subgroups of chronic pain patients derived from the MPI-S.
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?
MPI-S is primarily used to identify patients with well-functioning or dysfunctional coping strategies developed for Swedish usage.
“Multidimensional Pain Inventory‐Swedish version is primarily used to identify patients with well‐functioning or dysfunctional coping strategies developed for Swedish usage23, 24 based on a modified version of West Haven‐Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory.25”
From Cognitive behavioral therapy for frequent attenders in primary care (2018) · cites this paper as [24]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- Bergström, G., Bodin, L., Jensen, I. B., Linton, S. J., & Nygren, Å. L.
- Affiliations
- Karolinska Institutet (SE)
- Örebro University Hospital (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Bergström, Gunnar
- Venue
- Behaviour Research and Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-87
- ISSN
- 0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1979126700
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Keywords
- chronic non-specific low back pain, Multidimensional Pain Inventory, patient subgroups, patient characteristics, adaptive coping, dysfunctional coping, interpersonal distress, social support, pain intensity, emotional distress, life control, clustering
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Back Pain, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Sick Role, Sweden, Reproducibility of Results
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