Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Dutch Version of the Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ-VL).

Purpose The Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire (WORQ) was developed to evaluate work functioning in vocational rehabilitation, but was not yet available in Dutch. The goal of this study is twofold: a description of the cross-cultural adaptation process (part 1) of the WORQ to be used in Flanders (The Dutch speaking part of Belgium, WORQ-VL) and a presentation of the first psychometric testing of the WORQ-VL (part 2). Methods For part 1, the guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures by Beaton et al. were used to structure the cross-cultural adaptation. For part 2, a cross-sectional study was conducted in patients with musculoskeletal disorders [sample A: hand and wrist rehabilitation (n = 21) and sample B: fibromyalgia patients (n = 93)] who completed the WORQ-VL. Internal consistency and factor structure were examined in the total sample, whereas convergent and discriminant validity of the WORQ-VL were researched in sample A. Results First results on the convergent validity and discriminant validity (small sample size) and internal consistency of the WORQ-VL are promising. The exploratory factor analysis revealed seven factors which were labeled as 'cognition', 'physical', 'mood', 'activities of daily living', 'sensory', 'emotional' and 'social'. The best evidence was found for the 'physical' subscale of the WORQ-VL: strong correlations were found with the 'physical functioning' and 'role limitations-physical' subscales of the Short-Form Health Survey, respectively r = - .84 and r = - .59, p < .01. As expected, predominantly weak correlations were found with hand grip strength, kinesiophobia, hand-related aesthetics and satisfaction (ranging between r = - .38 and r = .34, p > .05). Conclusions The WORQ-VL is a user-friendly and valuable ICF-based self-report questionnaire to evaluate work functioning. Future studies are highly needed to examine the value of the WORQ within different patient populations and settings in order to examine further the added value of this self-report measure.

Differences in Pain Processing Between Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain, Recurrent Low Back Pain, and Fibromyalgia.

BACKGROUND: The impairment in musculoskeletal structures in patients with low back pain (LBP) is often disproportionate to their complaint. Therefore, the need arises for exploration of alternative mechanisms contributing to the origin and maintenance of non-specific LBP. The recent focus has been on central nervous system phenomena in LBP and the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the various symptoms and characteristics of chronic pain. Knowledge concerning changes in pain processing in LBP remains ambiguous, partly due to the diversity in the LBP population. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare quantitative sensory assessment in different groups of LBP patients with regard to chronicity. Recurrent low back pain (RLBP), mild chronic low back pain (CLBP), and severe CLBP are compared on the one hand with healthy controls (HC), and on the other hand with fibromyalgia (FM) patients, in which abnormal pain processing has previously been reported. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium. METHODS: Twenty-three RLBP, 15 mild CLBP, 16 severe CLBP, 26 FM, and 21 HC participated in this study. Quantitative sensory testing was conducted by manual pressure algometry and computer-controlled cuff algometry. A manual algometer was used to evaluate hyperalgesia as well as temporal summation of pain and a cuff algometer was used to evaluate deep tissue hyperalgesia, the efficacy of the conditioned pain modulation and spatial summation of pain. RESULTS: Pressure pain thresholds by manual algometry were significantly lower in FM compared to HC, RLBP, and severe CLBP. Temporal summation of pain was significantly higher in FM compared to HC and RLBP. Pain tolerance thresholds assessed by cuff algometry were significantly lower in FM compared to HC and RLBP and also in severe CLBP compared to RLBP. No significant differences between groups were found for spatial summation or conditioned pain modulation. LIMITATIONS: No psychosocial issues were taken into account for this study. CONCLUSION: The present results suggest normal pain sensitivity in RLBP, but future research is needed. In mild and severe CLBP some findings of altered pain processing are evident, although to a lesser extent compared to FM patients. In conclusion, mild and severe CLBP presents within a spectrum, somewhere between completely healthy persons and FM patients, characterized by pain augmentation.

The effect of relaxation therapy on autonomic functioning, symptoms and daily functioning, in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the effects of relaxation therapy on autonomic function, pain, fatigue and daily functioning in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia. METHOD: A systematic literature study was performed. Using specific keywords related to fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome and relaxation therapy, the electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Included articles were assessed for their risk of bias and relevant information regarding relaxation was extracted. The review was conducted and reported according to the PRISMA-statement. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized clinical trials of sufficient quality were included, resulting in a total of 650 fibromyalgia patients (11 studies) and 88 chronic fatigue syndrome patients (3 studies). None of the studies reported effects on autonomic function. Six studies reported the effect of guided imagery on pain and daily functioning in fibromyalgia. The acute effect of a single session of guided imagery was studied in two studies and seems beneficial for pain relief. For other relaxation techniques (eg. muscle relaxation, autogenic training) no conclusive evidence was found for the effect on pain and functioning in fibromyalgia patients comparison to multimodal treatment programs. For fatigue a multimodal approach seemed better than relaxation, as shown in the sole three studies on chronic fatigue syndrome patients. CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence for the acute effect of guided imagery on pain, although the content of the visualization is a matter of debate. Other relaxation formats and the effects on functionality and autonomic function require further study.

Primary care physical therapy in people with fibromyalgia: opportunities and boundaries within a monodisciplinary setting.

Despite the fact that people with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) frequently are seen by primary care physical therapists, guidelines for the management of FMS are based primarily on outcomes from multidisciplinary and tertiary care treatment studies. Few data addressing the treatment of patients with FMS in primary care currently are available. The evidence-based guidelines on the management of FMS are based, in part, on evidence from studies examining physical therapy treatment components alone (eg, aerobic exercise, education). Thus, the recommendations can be applied to primary care physical therapy. Primary care physical therapy for patients with FMS should include education, aerobic exercise, and strengthening exercise. For other treatment components such as passive treatments, activity management, and relaxation, less evidence currently is available to advocate their use in primary care physical therapy. Superior results are to be expected when various treatment components are combined.