Treatment outcome in individuals with chronic pain: is the Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire (PSOCQ) a useful tool? Jenny StrongCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Kym Westburya, Glen Smithb, Ian McKenziec and William Ryan

The efficacy of psychological treatments emphasising a self-management approach to chronic pain has been demonstrated by substantial empirical research. Nevertheless, high drop-out and relapse rates and low or unsuccessful engagement in self-management pain rehabilitation programs have prompted the suggestion that people vary in their readiness to adopt a self-management approach to their pain. The Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire (PSOCQ) was developed to assess a patient's readiness to adopt a self-management approach to their chronic pain. Preliminary evidence has supported the PSOCQ's psychometric properties. The current study was designed to further examine the psychometric properties of the PSOCQ, including its reliability, factorial structure and predictive validity. A total of 107 patients with an average age of 36.2 years (SD = 10.63) attending a multi-disciplinary pain management program completed the PSOCQ, the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) and the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI) pre-admission and at discharge from the program. Initial data analysis found inadequate internal consistencies of the precontemplation and action scales of the PSOCQ and a high correlation (r = 0.66, P < 0.01) between the action and maintenance scales. Principal component analysis supported a two-factor structure: 'Contemplation' and 'Engagement'. Subsequent analyses revealed that the PSEQ was a better predictor of treatment outcome than the PSOCQ scales. Discussion centres upon the utility of the PSOCQ in a clinical pain setting in light of the above findings, and a need for further research. (C) 2002 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Combined physiotherapy and education is efficacious for chronic low back pain

Manual therapy, exercise and education target distinct aspects of chronic low back pain and probably have distinct effects, This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a combined physiotherapy treatment that comprised all of these strategies. By concealed randomisation, 57 chronic low back pain patients were allocated to either the four-week physiotherapy program or management as directed by their general practitioners, The dependent variables of interest were pain and disability. Assessors were blind to treatment group. Outcome data from 49 subjects (86%) showed a significant treatment effect. The physiotherapy program reduced pain and disability by a mean of 1.5/10 points on a numerical rating scale (95% CI 0.7 to 2.3) and 3.9 points on the 18-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (95% CI 2 to 5.8), respectively. The number needed to treat in order to gain a clinically meaningful change was 3 (95% CI 3 to 8) for pain, and 2 (95% CI 2 to 5) for disability. A treatment effect was maintained at one-year follow-up. The findings support the efficacy of combined physiotherapy treatment in producing symptomatic and functional change in moderately disabled chronic low back pain patients.

Characterisation of chronic lateral epicondylalgia using the McGill pain questionnaire, visual analog scales, and quantitative sensory tests

Aims: To characterise chronic lateral epicondylalgia using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Visual Analog Scales for pain and function, and Quantitative Sensory Tests; and to examine the relationship between these tests in a population with chronic lateral epicondylalgia. Method: Fifty-six patients (29 female, 27 male) diagnosed with unilateral lateral epicondylalgia of 18.7 months (mean) duration (range 1-300), with a mean age of 50.7 years (range 27-73) participated in this study. Each participant underwent assessment with the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain and function. and Quantitative Sensory Tests (QST) including thermal and pressure pain thresholds, pain free grip strength, and neuromeningeal tissue testing via the upper limb tension test 2b (ULTT 2b). Results: Moderate correlation (r = .338-.514, p = .000-.013) was found between all indices of the MPQ and VAS for pain experienced in the previous 24 hours and week. Thermal pain threshold was found to be significantly higher in males. A significant poor to moderate correlation was found between the Pain Rating Index (PRI) in the sensory category of the MPQ and ULTT2b scores (r = .353, p = .038). There was no other significant correlation between MPQ and QST data. Pain free grip strength was poorly yet significantly correlated with duration of pathology (r = 318, p = .038). Conclusion: The findings of this study are in agreement with others (Melzack and Katz, 1994) regarding the multidimensional nature of pain, in a condition conventionally conceived as a musculoskeletal pain state. The findings also suggest that utilisation of only one pain measurement tool is unlikely to provide a thorough clinical picture of pain experienced with chronic lateral epicondylalgia.

Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Objective. To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment. Methods. Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia. governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain. Conclusions. There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy. (C) 2003 International Association for the Study of Pain.

Unraveling the barriers to reconceptualization of the problem in chronic pain: The actual and perceived ability of patients and health professionals to understand the neurophysiology

To identify why reconceptualization of the problem is difficult in chronic pain, this study aimed to evaluate whether (1) health professionals and patients can understand currently accurate information about the neurophysiology of pain and (2) health professionals accurately estimate the ability of patients to understand the neurophysiology of pain. Knowledge tests were completed by 276 patients with chronic pain and 288 professionals either before (untrained) or after (trained) education about the neurophysiology of pain. Professionals estimated typical patient performance on the test. Untrained participants performed poorly (mean +/- standard deviation, 55% +/- 19% and 29% +/- 12% for professionals and patients, respectively), compared to their trained counterparts (78% +/- 21% and 61% +/- 19%, respectively). The estimated patient score (46% +/- 18%) was less than the actual patient score (P < .005). The results suggest that professionals and patients can understand the neurophysiology of pain but professionals underestimate patients' ability to understand. The implications are that (1) a poor knowledge of currently accurate information about pain and (2) the underestimation of patients' ability to understand currently accurate information about pain represent barriers to reconceptualization of the problem in chronic pain within the clinical and lay arenas. (C) 2003 by the American Pain Society.

A pain neuromatrix approach to patients with chronic pain

This paper presents an approach to rehabilitation of pain patients. The fundamental principles of the approach are (i) pain is an output of the brain that is produced whenever the brain concludes that body tissue is in danger and action is required, and (ii) pain is a multisystem output that is produced when an individual-specific cortical pain neuromatrix is activated. When pain becomes chronic, the efficacy of the pain neuromatrix is strengthened via nociceptive and non-nociceptive mechanisms, which means that less input, both nociceptive and non-nociceptive, is required to produce pain. The clinical approach focuses on decreasing all inputs that imply that body tissue is in danger and then on activating components of the pain neuromatrix without activating its output. Rehabilitation progresses to increase exposure to threatening input across sensory and non-sensory domains. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Joining forces - Combining cognition-targeted motor control training with group or individual pain physiology education: A successful treatment for chronic low back pain

Chronic unremittent low back pain (LBP) is characterised by cognitive barriers to treatment. Combining a motor control training approach with individualised education about pain physiology is effective in this group of patients. This randomized comparative trial (i) evaluates an approach to motor control acquisition and training that considers the complexities of the relationship between pain and motor output, and (ii) compares the efficacy and cost of individualized and group pain physiology education. After an "ongoing usual treatment" period, patients participated in a 4-week motor control and pain physiology education program. Patients received four one-hour individualized education sessions (IE) or one 4-hour group lecture (GE). Both groups reduced pain (numerical rating scale) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). IE showed bigger decreases, which were maintained at 12 months (P < 0.05 for all). The combined motor control and education approach is effective. Although group education imparts a lesser effect, it may be more cost-efficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Core stability exercise in chronic low back pain

Exercise is commonly used in the management of chronic musculoskeletal conditions, including chronic low back pain (CLBP). The focus of exercise is varied and may include parameters ranging from strength and endurance training, to specific training of muscle coordination and control. The assumption underpinning these approaches is that improved neuromuscular function will restore or augment the control and support of the spine and pelvis. In a biomechanical model of CLBP, which assumes that pain recurrence is caused by repeated mechanical irritation of pain sensitive structures [1], it is proposed that this improved control and stability would reduce mechanical irritation and lead to pain relief [1]. Although this model provides explanation for the chronicity of LBP, perpetuation of pain is more complex, and contemporary neuroscience holds the view that chronic pain is mediated by a range of changes including both peripheral (eg, peripheral sensitization) and central neuroplastic changes [2]. Although this does not exclude the role of improved control of the lumbar spine and pelvis in management of CLBP, particularly when there is peripheral sensitization, it highlights the need to look beyond outdated simplistic models. One factor that this information highlights is that the refinement of control and coordination may be more important than simple strength and endurance training for the trunk muscles. The objective of this article is to discuss the rationale for core stability exercise in the management of CLBP, to consider critical factors for its implementation, and to review evidence for efficacy of the approach.

Prolotherapy injections for chronic low back pain - A systematic review

Study Design. A systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Objectives. To determine the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in adults with chronic low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Prolotherapy is an injection-based treatment for chronic low back pain. Proponents of prolotherapy suggest that some back pain stems from weakened or damaged ligaments. Repeatedly injecting them with irritant solutions is thought to strengthen the ligaments and reduce pain and disability. Prolotherapy protocols usually include co-interventions to enhance the effectiveness of the injections. Methods. The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index up to January 2004, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 2004, issue 1, and consulted content experts. Both randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing prolotherapy injections to control injections, either alone or in combination with other treatments, were included. Studies had to include measures of pain and disability before and after the intervention. Two reviewers independently selected the trials and assessed them for methodologic quality. Treatment and control group protocols varied from study to study, making meta-analysis impossible. Results. Four studies, all of high quality and with a total of 344 participants, were included. All trials measured pain and disability levels at 6 months, three measured the proportion of participants reporting a greater than 50% reduction in pain or disability scores from baseline to 6 months. Two studies showed significant differences between the treatment and control groups for those reporting more than 50% reduction in pain or disability. Their results could not be pooled. In one, cointerventions confounded interpretation of results; in the other, there was no significant difference in mean pain and disability scores between the groups. In the third study, there was little or no difference between groups in the number of individuals who reported more than 50% improvement in pain and disability. The fourth study reporting only mean pain and disability scores showed no differences between groups. Conclusions. There is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Conclusions are confounded by clinical heterogeneity among studies and by the presence of co-interventions. There was no evidence that prolotherapy injections alone were more effective than control injections alone. However, in the presence of co-interventions, prolotherapy injections were more effective than control injections, more so when both injections and co-interventions were controlled concurrently.