Chronic low-back pain: what does cognitive coping skills training add to operant behavioral treatment? Results of a randomized clinical trial.

This study examined the supplemental value of a cognitive coping skills training when added to an operant-behavioral treatment for chronic low-back pain patients. The complete treatment package (OPCO) was compared with an operant program + group discussion (OPDI) and a waiting-list control (WLC). After the WL period, the WLC patients received a less protocolized operant program usually provided in Dutch rehabilitation centers (OPUS). Regression analyses showed that, compared with WLC, both OPCO and OPDI led to less negative affect, higher activity tolerance, less pain behavior, and higher pain coping and pain control. At posttreatment, OPCO led to better pain coping and pain control than OPDI. Calculation of improvement rates revealed that OPCO and OPDI had significantly more improved patients than OPUS on all the dependent variables. The discussion includes findings regarding treatment credibility, compliance, and contamination bias.

Behavioural rehabilitation of chronic low back pain: comparison of an operant treatment, an operant-cognitive treatment and an operant-respondent treatment.

Seventy-one chronic low back pain patients were assigned to one of three behavioural rehabilitation treatments or a waiting-list condition. The first intervention consisted of an operant treatment, aimed at increasing health behaviours and activity levels and at reducing pain and illness behaviours. In the second intervention, a cognitive treatment, aimed at the reinterpretation of catastrophizing pain cognitions and at enhancing self-control, was combined with an operant treatment. The third intervention consisted of the combination of the operant approach and a respondent treatment. During the respondent treatment, patients were taught to decrease muscle tension levels, using the 'applied relaxation' technique supported by EMG-biofeedback and graded exposure to tension-eliciting situations. A repeated measurements design included observer rating of pain behaviours, observer ratings of mood, self-reported depression, residual health behaviours, pain cognitions and experienced pain intensity. Follow-up assessment occurred at six months and one year after termination of treatment. Results suggest that, for the sample as a whole, improvements are found on measures of pain behaviours, health behaviours, pain cognitions and affective distress and that these improvements are maintained at six months and one year follow-up. During the treatment the three treatment groups improved significantly more than the waiting-list control group on most of the measures. Further, the results of this study provide evidence that the operant-cognitive and operant-respondent conditions are more efficacious in decreasing pain behaviours and in increasing health behaviours and efficacy expectations than operant treatment alone. This differential effect among the conditions is maintained at follow-up. Patients who received the OC and OR treatments catastrophize less than OP patients, and OC patients showed better scores on outcome-efficacy than OR patients. In general, the results suggest that behavioural rehabilitation programmes for chronic low back pain are effective and that the effects of an operant treatment are magnified when self-control techniques are added.

What do chronic pain patients think of their pain? Towards a pain cognition questionnaire.

The three-systems model of chronic pain emphasizes the partially independent relationship among physiological, gross motor and verbal-cognitive responses of chronic pain patients. This study describes the development of an assessment instrument representing a measure for the verbal-cognitive response system of chronic pain. Fifty items, each of which is assigned to one of five factors (pain impact, catastrophizing, outcome efficacy, acquiescence and reliance on health care) constitute the new Pain Cognition List (PCL). The PCL was developed using a Dutch back pain population and proves to be stable across sex and back pain diagnosis. By means of three experiments the PCL is shown to be reliable and sufficiently valid. The PCL might be a promising tool for identifying pain patients whose pain problem is mainly controlled by cognitive factors.

The role of fear of movement/(re)injury in pain disability.

It is now well established that in chronic low back pain, there is no direct relationship between impairments, pain, and disability. From a cognitive-behavioral perspective, pain disability is not only influenced by the organic pathology, but also by cognitive-perceptual, psychophysiological, and motoric-environmental factors. This paper focuses on the role of specific beliefs that are associated with avoidance of activities. These beliefs are related to fear of movement and physical activity, which is (wrongfully) assumed to cause (re)injury. Two studies are presented, of which the first examines the factor structure of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), a recently developed questionnaire that is aimed at quantifying fear of movement/(re)injury. In the second study, the value of fear of movement/(re)injury in predicting disability levels is analyzed, when the biomedical status of the patient and current pain intensity levels are controlled for. In addition, the determinants of fear of movement/(re)injury are examined. The discussion focuses on the clinical relevance of the fear-avoidance model in relation to risk assessment, assessment of functional capacity, and secondary prevention.

Health economic assessment of behavioural rehabilitation in chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial.

The aim of this cost-effectiveness study was to compare a combined operant programme plus cognitive/relaxation programme with an operant programme plus attention-control and to compare both programmes with a waiting-list control group and with operant rehabilitation provided, as usual, by the same rehabilitation centre. One hundred and forty eight patients with chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to the different conditions. The economic endpoints were the costs of the programme and other health care utilisation, costs for the patient, and indirect costs associated with production losses due to low back pain. The effects were measured in terms of global assessment of change and utilities, using rating scale and standard gamble methods. The 3-year study determined that adding a cognitive component to an operant treatment did not lead to significant differences in costs and improvement in quality of life when compared with the operant treatment alone. Compared with the common individual rehabilitation therapy it can be concluded that the same effects can be reached at the same or lower costs with a shorter, more intense standardised group programme. The operant treatment alone is more effective than providing no treatment in the waiting-list control group.