Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan 5;9(1):145.
doi: 10.3390/jcm9010145.

Multidisciplinary Pain Management of Chronic Back Pain: Helpful Treatments from the Patients' Perspective

Timo A Nees  1 , Ernst Riewe  1 , Daniela Waschke  1   2 , Marcus Schiltenwolf  1 , Eva Neubauer  1 , Haili Wang  1   3
Affiliations

Multidisciplinary Pain Management of Chronic Back Pain: Helpful Treatments from the Patients' Perspective

Timo A Nees et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Multidisciplinary pain management programs (MPMP) for patients suffering from chronic back pain include a variety of treatment modalities. The patients' perceived helpfulness of these treatment modalities remains unclear. The aims of this prospective observational cohort study were to assess (i) the patients' perceived helpfulness of different treatment modalities, (ii) the influence of sociodemographic characteristics on the patient's perspective and (iii) whether treatment outcomes are affected by helpfulness ratings. Treatment modalities of this three-week MPMP consisted of individual physiotherapy, group-based physiotherapy, relaxation therapy, aquatic therapy, back education, medical training therapy, biofeedback, psychological pain therapy and music therapy. The study comprised 395 patients. The main outcome was the patients' perceived treatment helpfulness at the end of the program measured by a self-reported questionnaire ranging from 1 (not at all helpful) to 6 (extremely helpful). Secondary outcomes were treatment effects on pain, pain related disability, functional ability and level of depressive symptoms measured by self-reported questionnaires (NRS, PDI, FFbH-R, ADS-L). A total of 276 patients (22-64 years, 57% female) were available for overall analysis. Multivariate-analysis-of-variance- (MANOVA-) related results revealed that perceived treatment helpfulness (range 1-6) differed significantly between treatment modalities: individual physiotherapy (M = 5.00), group-based physiotherapy (M = 4.87), relaxation therapy (M = 4.6), aquatic therapy (M = 4.54), back education (M = 4.43), medical training therapy (M = 3.38), biofeedback (M = 3.31), psychological pain therapy (M = 3.15), music therapy (M = 3.02). Pain, pain related disability and levels of depressive symptoms significantly improved after the program (p < 0.001) whereas functional ability decreased (p < 0.01). Significant correlations were found between helpfulness ratings and sociodemographic data indicating that perceived treatment helpfulness was influenced by patient-related factors. Importantly, the degree of pain-related improvements was affected by the patients' perceived treatment helpfulness. In conclusion, patients' perceived treatment helpfulness differs significantly between treatment modalities and corresponds to treatment outcome.

Keywords: back pain; multidisciplinary pain treatment; patient satisfaction; physical therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The patients’ perceived treatment helpfulness at discharge. The number (#) of patients (= n) rating respective treatments of the multidisciplinary pain management program as being helpful (blue) or not helpful (red). Treatments were considered as helpful when rated ≥ 4 (= moderately helpful) and as not helpful when rated < 4 (rating scale from 1–6).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean perceived treatment helpfulness. Mean perceived helpfulness differs significantly between treatment modalities of the multidisciplinary pain management program (Analysis of variance (ANOVA): p < 0.001). Mean helpfulness ratings (±SD) ranged from 5 (±1.2) for individually-delivered physiotherapy to 3.02 (±1.47) for music therapy. Highly significant differences were observed between individually-delivered physiotherapy and back education, medical training therapy, biofeedback, psychological pain therapy as well as music therapy (Tukey’s multiple comparison: p < 0.001). Moreover, relaxation therapy, aquatic therapy and back education were perceived to be significantly more helpful than medical training therapy (Tukey’s multiple comparison: p < 0.001). Table 1 of the program (1 = not at all helpful, 2 = I don’t know, 3 = slightly helpful, 4 = moderately helpful, 5 = very helpful, 6 = extremely helpful). Data is presented as mean ± standard deviation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Nachemson A. Recent advances in the treatment of low back pain. Int. Orthop. 1985;9:1–10. doi: 10.1007/BF00267031. - DOI - PubMed
    1. O′Connor S.R., Tully M.A., Ryan B., Bleakley C.M., Baxter G.D., Bradley J.M., McDonough S.M. Walking exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2015;96:724–734. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.12.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hayden J.A., van Tulder M.W., Tomlinson G. Systematic review: Strategies for using exercise therapy to improve outcomes in chronic low back pain. Ann. Intern. Med. 2005;142:776–785. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-9-200505030-00014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Middelkoop M., Rubinstein S.M., Kuijpers T., Verhagen A.P., Ostelo R., Koes B.W., van Tulder M.W. A systematic review on the effectiveness of physical and rehabilitation interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain. Eur. Spine J. 2011;20:19–39. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1518-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van Tulder M.W., Ostelo R., Vlaeyen J.W., Linton S.J., Morley S.J., Assendelft W.J. Behavioral treatment for chronic low back pain: A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine. 2000;25:2688–2699. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200010150-00024. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

  NODES
INTERN 1
twitter 2