Multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus usual care for chronic low back pain in the community: Effects on quality of life
Abstract
Background context Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation has been shown in controlled studies to improve pain and function in patients with chronic back pain. However, specialized back pain rehabilitation centers are rare and only a few patients can participate on this therapy. Implementation of multidisciplinary rehabilitation services in community medicine may enhance both early availability and treatment capacity for comprehensive back pain rehabilitation. Purpose To compare the outcome of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program (MRP) that was organized by cooperation of local health-care providers in the community with that of the usual care by independent physicians for patients with chronic low back pain. Study design A comparison between the outcomes (follow-up time of 6 months) of treatment for chronic back pain in the community in a prospective intervention group versus a prospective observational usual care group. Patient sample All patients were recruited from independent physicians in the community of a selected region who participated voluntarily in the study. Patients were included in the study if they were seeking treatment of pain in the back with possible irradiation into the legs, the pain persisted for at least 3 months without decreasing intensity and there was no indication for surgical intervention. Outcome measures Outcome was assessed from patients' responses in self-report questionnaires at baseline and after an interval of 6 months. For…
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?
Less intensive treatment is less powerful.
“the most logical implication of these differences is one that is fairly common in the published literature on chronic pain treatment: Less intensive treatment is less powerful.”
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 23 · Cited by 119
- Authors
- Lang, E., Liebig, K., Kastner, S., Neundörfer, B., & Heuschmann, P.
- Affiliations
- Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
- University of Münster (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lang, Eberhard
- Venue
- The Spine Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 270-276
- ISSN
- 1529-9430 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074394808
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Spine Journal (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 › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Keywords
- chronic low back pain, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, biopsychosocial rehabilitation, community-based rehabilitation, usual care, health-related quality of life, pain intensity, depression, absenteeism, cognitive behavioral therapy, physiotherapy, exercise therapy, progressive muscle relaxation, patient education
- MeSH terms
- Chronic Disease, Combined Modality Therapy, Community Medicine, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Low Back 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
