Longitudinal outcome evaluations of Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment programmes for patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment (IMPT) programmes share a biopsychosocial approach to increase the wellbeing of patients with chronic pain, substantial variation in content and duration have been reported. In addition, it is unclear to what extent any favourable health outcomes are maintained over time. Therefore, our first aim was to identify and analyse the change over time of patient-related outcome measures in cohorts of patients who participated in IMPT programmes. Our second aim was to acquire insight into the heterogeneity of IMPT programmes. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: The study protocol was registered in Prospero under CRD42018076093. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Cinahl from inception to May 2020. All study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were independently performed by two researchers. Study cohorts were eligible if they included adult patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain for at least 3 months. We assessed the change over time, by calculating pre-post, post-follow-up and pre-follow-up contrasts for seven different patient-reported outcome domains. To explore the variability between the IMPT programmes, we summarized the patient characteristics and treatment programmes using the intervention description and replication checklist. RESULTS: The majority of the 72 included patient cohorts significantly improved during treatment. Importantly, this improvement was generally maintained at follow-up. In line with our expectations and with previous studies, we observed substantial methodological and statistical heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that participation in an IMPT programme is associated with considerable improvements in wellbeing that are generally maintained at follow-up. The current study also found substantial heterogeneity in dose and treatment content, which suggests different viewpoints on how to optimally design an IMPT programme. SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides insight into the different existing approaches regarding the dose and content of IMPT programs. This analysis contributes to an increased understanding of the various approaches by which a biopsychosocial perspective on chronic pain can be translated to treatment programs. Furthermore, despite theoretical and empirical assertions regarding the difficulty to maintain newly learned health behaviors over time, the longitudinal analysis of health outcomes did not find a relapse pattern for patients who participated in IMPT programs.

Patients' Perspectives on the Usability of a Blended Approach to an Integrated Intervention for Patients With Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Medically unexplained physical symptoms are physical symptoms, such as pain, fatigue, and dizziness, that persist for more than a few weeks and cannot be explained after adequate medical examination. Treatment for preventing the chronicity of symptoms is recommended. A promising approach is identifying patients who are at risk and subsequently offering a blended care intervention that focuses on promoting self-management while using eHealth as a supportive tool. When these interventions match with a patient's expectations, their effectiveness grows. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to obtain more insights into usability from the patient perspective to improve future interventions. METHODS: A mixed methods design (ie, the use of qualitative and quantitative data) was used. Through semistructured interviews, in-depth insights were gained into patients' perspectives on usability. The analysis process was continuous and iterative. Data were synthesized and categorized into different themes. The System Usability Scale, which measures the usability of a system, was used to compare participants that found usability to be low, medium, or high. This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee Utrecht (approval number: 17-391/C). RESULTS: Saturation was reached after interviewing 13 participants. The following four themes emerged from the interviews: motivations and expectations prior to participating in the program, the applicability of e-coaching, the role of health care professionals, and the integrated design of the blended approach. CONCLUSIONS: The successful implementation of integrated blended care interventions based on patients' perspectives requires matching treatments to patients' individual situations and motivations. Furthermore, personalizing the relative frequency of face-to-face appointments and e-coaching can improve usability.

Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Manipulative therapy is widely used in the treatment of spinal disorders. Manipulative techniques are under debate because of the possibility of adverse events. To date, the efficacy of manipulations compared to sham manipulations is unclear. The purpose of the study is: to assess the efficacy of manipulative therapy compared to sham in adults with a variety of complaints. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Central) along with a hand search of selected bibliographies were searched from inception up to April 2012. RESULTS: In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD - 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD - 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings. No serious adverse events were reported in the manipulative therapy or sham group. CONCLUSIONS: Manipulative therapy has a clinical relevant effect on pain, but not on disability or perceived (asthma) recovery. Clinicians can refer patients for manipulative therapy to reduce pain.