Cited by 74Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Evaluation of a Behavioral-medical Inpatient Rehabilitation Treatment Including Booster Sessions: A Randomized Controlled Study

Mangels, Marija, Schwarz, Susanne, Worringen, Ulrike, Holme, Martin, Rief, Winfried·2009·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this randomized controlled study was to investigate whether additional psychologic interventions in the context of multidisciplinary inpatient pain treatment increases treatment efficacy compared with normal orthopedic rehabilitation. In addition, we aimed to demonstrate the additional benefit of a subsequent maintenance program in further stabilizing treatment successes. Methods We randomly assigned 363 chronic back pain patients to 1 of 3 treatment conditions: traditional orthopedic rehabilitation, multidisciplinary (behavioral-medical) rehabilitation alone, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation with subsequent booster sessions. Pain disability, depression, self-efficacy, health status, life satisfaction, and coping strategies were assessed at admission, discharge, and 12 months follow-up. The completion rate was 94%. Results All 3 treatment conditions were effective in improving core outcome measures in chronic back pain patients in the short term. The results were almost maintained at follow-up (small-to-medium within-group effect sizes). Significant advantages in favor of behavioral-medical interventions were found on almost all pain coping strategies and depression compared with traditional orthopedic rehabilitation. We found only slight advantages for the behavioral-medical treatment with subsequent booster sessions compared with the condition without a further maintenance program. Discussion The results concerning the efficacy of the multidiscipli…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0b013e3181925791

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mangels, M., Schwarz, S., Worringen, U., Holme, M., & Rief, W.
Affiliations
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Mangels, Marija
  • Schwarz, Susanne
  • Rief, Winfried
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2009-06
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
356-364
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088715223
Cited by
74
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
chronic back pain, multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation, booster sessions, follow-up care, orthopedic rehabilitation, pain coping, depression, self-efficacy, pain-related disability, maintenance therapy
MeSH terms
Back Pain, Behavior Therapy, Female, Germany, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Stress, Psychological, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction

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