Chronic headache patients' health behavior and health service use 12 months after interdisciplinary treatment - what do they keep in their daily routines?

BACKGROUND: We do not yet know whether or the extent to which multimodal therapy changes the health behaviors and health service use of chronic headache patients in the long term. Associations are expected between pain symptoms and pain management abilities for patients who are categorized as successfully treated and those who remain unchanged. METHODS: Routine longitudinal data of an enrolment period of five years from 101 headache patients treated with a two-week, full-day, semi-inpatient multimodal pain therapy at the Interdisciplinary Pain Center of the University Clinic Erlangen were available when therapy began and 12 months after treatment. To investigate long-term changes in health behavior and health service use as well as their associations with the outcome "reduction in pain days," we used descriptive and inferential statistics (i.e., binary logistic regression). RESULTS: Patients who underwent interdisciplinary treatment showed statistically significant changes in their health behavior in five areas. Twelve months after treatment, we found a significantly higher frequency of engagement in athletic sports (p < .001) as well as increases in the use of relaxation techniques (p < .001), TENS devices for relaxation purposes (p = .008), psychological coping strategies (p < .001), and mindfulness-based techniques for dealing with pain (p < .001). 52.8% of the sample reported a reduction in the number of pain days 12 months after treatment. Binary logistic regression (χ2 (12) = 21.419; p = .045; R2 = .255) revealed that a reduction in pain days 12 months after treatment was positively associated with regular physical activity in the form of muscle strengthening and stretching (athletic sports) (p = .012). CONCLUSION: Chronic headache patients acquired long-term skills from an interdisciplinary treatment concerning the use of relaxation techniques, the use of psychological coping strategies, and physical activity in the form of athletic exercise. Of those, regular athletic exercise was positively associated with a smaller number of pain days in the long term. Thus, a physical activity module should be an element of interdisciplinary treatment for chronic headache patients.

Access to Pain Management Programs: A Multifactorial Analysis of the Pathways of Care for Chronic Pain Patients in the University Clinic Erlangen.

BACKGROUND: Different treatment options are offered for patients suffering from chronic pain, which differ in intensity and costs: 1) monodisciplinary treatment, mostly in outpatient care and 2) interdisciplinary treatment with the option of participating in pain management programs as outpatients or inpatients. The present work investigates how patients at the University Clinic Erlangen receiving monodisciplinary treatment differ from those receiving interdisciplinary treatment (research question I) as well as how patients participating in a pain management program differ from those who do not (research question II). The aim is to generate insights into whether the differences between the patient groups under various treatment modalities reflect the officially defined criteria for the indication of chronic pain management programs. METHODS: Routine data of 1,833 patients treated from January 2008 to March 2013 at the University Clinic Erlangen were analyzed. After univariate preanalyses and checks for multicollinearity, the remaining variables were used for the final multivariate model (multiple binary logistic regression) for research question I and II. RESULTS: Research question I: Patients getting interdisciplinary treatment were more often employed, had higher affective experience of pain, more often regarded their pain as treatable, had more often participated in at least one pain-associated rehabilitation treatment in the past, were younger and rarely had application for retirement in consideration. Research question II: Patients who participated in a pain management program were more often female, more often employed, described their pain as mainly located at the upper part of the body, had more concomitant symptoms, were more often diagnosed with musculoskeletal pain and rarely had a retirement request pending. CONCLUSIONS: It could be shown that patients in the analyzed pathways of care mainly differed in demographic variables, and regarding pain management programs, also in the type of pain. Differences between patients in different treatment paths reflecting the officially defined indication criteria for chronic pain management programs were detectable only to a minor extent. Clearer and operational practical guidance should help support the clinical decision to assign patients to different treatment options and close the gap between theory and practice.

Validation of a core patient-reported-outcome measure set for operationalizing success in multimodal pain therapy: useful for depicting long-term success?

BACKGROUND: The study aims to validate a previously developed and published combined success criterion for patients after multimodal pain therapy (Donath et al., BMC Health Serv Res 15:272, 2015). The criterion classifies treated patients as successful in the long term on the basis of pain severity, disability through pain, depressiveness, and health-related quality of life. METHODS: Routine longitudinal data of 135 pain patients treated with multimodal pain therapy in 2014-2015 at the Interdisciplinary Pain Center of the University Clinic Erlangen were available at baseline, therapy start, therapy end, and 12 months after treatment. Patients were, on average, 51.0 (SD 11.1) years old and to 63.7% female, two thirds were employed (66.7%). We conducted an analysis of concurrent validity (with: pain severity, disability through pain, depressiveness, mental and physical quality of life), criterion validity (with disability days, self-rated success), convergent validity (with stress, anxiety, well-being), and discriminant validity (with chronicity of pain, comorbidity), objectivity, and reliability. Statistically, descriptive and inference statistics, graphical methods and MANOVAs were used. RESULTS: Patients classified as successful had significantly better values on the 5 variables demonstrating concurrent validity (all p < .001), significantly fewer Disability days (M = 15.31 (SD = 23.15) vs. M = 26.75 (SD = 29.15)); t (133) = 2.308; p = .024, less Anxiety (Pillai-Spur: F (3, 131) = 2.972, p = .034), less Stress (Pillai-Spur: F (3, 131) = 9.907, p < .001), and better Well-being (Pillai-Spur: F (3, 131) = 9.594, p < .001) 12 months after treatment than patients classified as not successful. The Spearman correlation between success classification and Chronicity stage was .094 (p = .280). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the validity of the combined success criterion with long-term data in addition to confirming the reliability and objectivity of the criterion. Future research might consider identifying predictors of success in multi-modal pain therapy.