[Pain therapy in Germany - what is the difference between initial outpatient and inpatient treatment? : Assessment based on the KEDOQ pain dataset]. / Schmerztherapeutische Versorgung in Deutschland ­ was unterscheidet ambulante und stationäre Patienten zu Behandlungsbeginn? : Eine Auswertung auf Basis des KEDOQ-Schmerz-Datensatzes.

A comparison of chronic pain patients in outpatient and inpatient treatment settings regarding pain-related and psychological characteristics, has not yet been systematically analyzed. The core documentation and quality assurance in pain therapy (KEDOQ-Schmerz) is a quality assurance system for documentation and quality management of pain therapy in different treatment settings. The system was initiated by the German Pain Society. We used KEDOQ-Schmerz data to describe differences between patients being treated in outpatient and inpatient settings with respect to social, pain-related and psychological factors. In total, the set of KEDOQ-Schmerz data analyzed included information from 4705 patients (from 13 clinics) collected between January 2012 and April 2016. Patients received either outpatient (n = 2682) or inpatient (n = 2023) treatment. The data analyzed comprised sociodemographic, pain-related and psychological data collected through the German Pain Questionnaire (DSF) at the beginning of treatment as well as information about pain chronification and pain localization provided by practitioners. The statistical analysis was carried out by descriptive and comparative data analysis using univariate and multivariate statistical methods. Patients with inpatient treatment were significantly older, more often female and more often had multiple pain localizations. They described stronger pain intensity and more frequently had a higher Mainz Pain Staging System (MPSS) score of pain chronification. They described a significantly poorer physical and mental health-related quality of life in the short form (SF-12) health survey, had significantly higher depression, anxiety and stress values (DASS) and a poorer habitual well-being in the Marburg questionnaire on habitual well-being (MFHW). Significant group differences had only small effect sizes. Even though most predictors for the inpatient treatment setting in multivariate analysis were significant, in total they explained less than 5% of the variance. The results indicate that pain therapy in specialized pain settings more and more has to manage patients with higher pain chronification, higher pain-related stress and previous therapy experience. The differences in patient characteristics between treatment settings are mostly clinically unimportant. Differences in clinical features do not declare the allocation to one treatment setting or the other.

Construct and predictive validity of the German Örebro questionnaire short form for psychosocial risk factor screening of patients with low back pain.

PURPOSE: Recognizing patients at risk of developing chronic low back pain is essential for targeted interventions. One of the best researched screening instruments for this purpose is the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMSPQ). This work addresses psychometric properties of the German ÖMSPQ short form and its construct and prognostic validity. METHODS: Analyses are based on a cluster-randomized trial assessing a risk tailored intervention for patients consulting for low back pain in 35 general practices. A total of 360 patients consulting for acute and sub-acute back pain, aged 20-60 years, were included. All patients received a 10-item German short version of the ÖMSPQ, and other generic instruments (Graded Chronic Pain Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-Depression, Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire). The construct validity was assessed based on the factorial structure of the items and correlations with generic instruments. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were calculated as measures of prognostic validity. RESULTS: ÖMSPQ items belonging to the same subscale correlated highest among each other. The internal consistency of the ÖMSPQ items was 0.80 (Cronbach's α). The factorial structure corresponds with theoretic expectations. ÖMSPQ subscales on pain related disability, depression, and fear-avoidance beliefs correlated highest with their counterpart generic scales. The AUC for three ÖMSPQ-based prediction models ranged from 0.77 to 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support a satisfactory factorial and prognostic validity of the German short ÖMSPQ. The instrument may guide the provision of targeted interventions. Further research should link it to targeted treatments.

[Comparison of two screening questionnaires for patients with low back pain. Collation of risk factors for chronification]. / Vergleich zweier Screening-Fragebogen für Patienten mit Rückenschmerzen. Erfassung von Risikofaktoren für eine Chronifizierung.

BACKGROUND: Screening for risk factors for chronic low back pain (LBP) (yellow flags) is recommended by clinical guidelines. Various questionnaires to assess yellow flags have been proposed. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic validity of two screening questionnaires. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study with 241 LBP patients from 9 general practitioners, 4 orthopedic surgeons and 2 pain clinics. We compared the Örebro musculoskeletal pain questionnaire (ÖMSPQ) and the Heidelberg short questionnaire (HKF-R10) which were completed by all patients at inclusion before the consultation. Primary outcomes were assessed after 3 months by mail. Clinical endpoints were pain intensity, disability and more than two follow-up consultations. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the HKF-R10 to predict the primary outcome ranged from 81 % to 88 %, while the specificity was much lower (37-47 %). The ÖMSPQ showed an opposite pattern with a low sensitivity ranging from 50 % to 58 % but a higher specificity (77-80 %). In patients initially classified as having chronic LBP (n = 81), using the questionnaires as a diagnostic tool, the sensitivity of both questionnaires increased but specificity decreased. Single items may perform better with regard to primary outcome than the sum scores. CONCLUSION: Both screening questionnaires for chronic LBP have insufficient diagnostic and prognostic validity for routine use in ambulatory care. Further studies are needed to improve diagnostic and prognostic validity and to elaborate criteria for a targeted use of screening questionnaires to guide therapeutic interventions.

[Multidisciplinary assessment for multimodal pain therapy. Indications and range of performance]. / Interdisziplinäres Assessment zur multimodalen Schmerztherapie. Indikation und Leistungsumfang.

According to evidence-based German national guidelines for non-specific low back pain, a broad multidisciplinary assessment is indicated after persisting pain experience of 6 weeks in order to check the indications for an multi- and interdisciplinary pain therapy program. In this paper the necessary topics, the content and the disciplines involved as well as the extent of the multidisciplinary assessment are described as developed by the ad hoc commission on multimodal pain therapy of the German Pain Society.

[Pre-existing pain as comorbidity in postoperative acute pain service]. / Vorbestehender Schmerz als Komorbidität im postoperativen Akutschmerzdienst.

BACKGROUND: Pre-existing or chronic pain is a relevant risk factor for severe postoperative pain. The prevalence of pre-existing and chronic pain in hospital depends on the time definition used and is approximately 44 % and 33%, at 3 or 6 months, respectively. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and importance of pre-existing pain in patients treated by a postoperative acute pain service (APS) and to evaluate the requirements for treatment and resources as well as its quality in this context. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study involved an evaluation of all visits by the APS of the University Hospital in Göttingen over an 8-week period including patient subjective quality assessment on the basis of the quality improvement in postoperative pain therapy (QUIPS) questionnaire. Pre-existing pain (>12 weeks) was assessed by recording patients history of pain by members of the APS. The results from patients with and without pre-existing pain were compared. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients (38% female, 62% male, aged 15-88 years old, mean age 59.8 ± 14.4 years) were seen by the APS on 633 occasions. Of these patients 91% had been admitted to hospital for surgery (66% for tumor surgery, 8% joint replacement, 9% other joint surgery and 16% other interventions), 50% had acute postoperative pain without pre-existing pain, 50% had had pre-existing pain for at least 12 weeks, 31% had chronic non-cancer pain and 19% pain possibly related to cancer. Patients with pre-existing pain showed no significant differences in the treatment requirements (e.g. adjustment of medication), use of resources (e.g. number of visits to the APS and time spent in hospital) and quality of care (e.g. pain intensity, functional aspects, side effects and complications) in the setting of the APS. However, there was an additional subsequent support by chronic pain and palliative care services. CONCLUSION: Pre-existing pain is a common comorbidity in surgery patients treated by the APS. There were no significant differences in treatment requirements and quality of care between the patients. This is in contrast to other studies of postoperative pain management which showed that patients with pre-existing postoperative pain had higher pain intensity. This indicates indirectly that the presence of pre-existing pain should be further evaluated as a potentially useful indication for the support by an APS. However there is an urgent need for further studies to clarify whether this indirect effect can be replicated at other hospitals or in other patient collectives. Also it has to be clarified what benefits pain patients have from this kind of treatment: if they benefit from the APS in general or from the special technique, if there is a long-term effect lasting beyond treatment in the APS or if this group of patients would benefit in general from multiprofessional and non-invasive concepts of acute pain treatment.

[Multimodal pain therapy: principles and indications]. / Multimodale Schmerztherapie: Konzepte und Indikation.

Multimodal pain therapy describes an integrated multidisciplinary treatment in small groups with a closely coordinated therapeutical approach. Somatic and psychotherapeutic procedures cooperate with physical and psychological training programs. For chronic pain syndromes with complex somatic, psychological and social consequences, a therapeutic intensity of at least 100 hours is recommended. Under these conditions multimodal pain therapy has proven to be more effective than other kinds of treatment. If monodisciplinary and/or outpatient therapies fail, health insurance holders have a legitimate claim to this form of therapy.Medical indications are given for patients with chronic pain syndromes, but also if there is an elevated risk of chronic pain in the early stadium of the disease and aiming at delaying the process of chronification. Relative contraindications are a lack of motivation for behavioural change, severe mental disorders or psychopathologies and addiction problems. The availability of multimodal pain treatment centers in Germany is currently insufficient.

[Treatment of chronic low back pain through intensive activation - an assessment of 10 years]. / Die Behandlung chronischer Rückenschmerzen durch ein intensives Aktivierungskonzept (GRIP) - eine Bilanz von 10 Jahren*

AIM OF THE STUDY: Treatment of chronic low back pain is a difficult problem and usually of low effectiveness. Aim of the study was to analyse the effectiveness of a multimodal treatment procedure. METHODS: From the basis of functional restoration concepts primarily established in the USA we conceptualized a treatment program which initially was funded by the German ministry of research. Over the years the regimen was modified in several respects (programs of different intensity). From 1990 to 2000 762 patients were treated in this way with one-year follow-up examination. RESULTS: Patients who were off work had significant differences in psychosocial and pain-related variables in comparison to those patients who were still working. Treatment procedures were in general very effective, although a modification of the program with less treatment (no work-hardening) failed in repeating the same effects. Pain intensity, disability, amount of depression and psychological distress improved significantly as well as work capability and use of the health care system. Nearly all results were seen to stabilize at the 12-month evaluation. DISCUSSION: Functional restoration programs for treatment of chronic low back pain have demonstrated effectiveness in several countries. By early use of these programs the high amount of costs due to back pain disability may be consequently reduced. Up to now in Germany these concepts are not well-known and insurance companies as well as the health system do not yet acknowledge them.

[Multidisciplinary treatment program for chronic low back pain, part 1. Overview]. / Das Göttinger Rücken Intensiv Programm (GRIP)--ein multimodales Behandlungsprogramm für Patienten mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen, Teil 1 Ergebnisse im Uberblick.

UNLABELLED: A multimodal treatment program is presented in cases of functional restoration for chronic low back pain. The study comprises four parts. Part I gives an overview of the different results of the study. Part II focuses on the medical and functional examination in comparison with persons who do not suffer from back pain. Part III describes psychosocial aspects (depression, complaints, ways of coping, disability) and psychotherapy. In part IV prognostic factors and their reliability for predicting treatment outcome (return to work, pain intensity, self-assessment of success by patients) are examined. In addition the relevant effects of the program on social and health care systems are also addressed. PROBLEM: The incidence of low back pain is continuously increasing, causing tremendous costs for the health insurance system. Therefore effective treatment methods are needed that take into account somatic, psychological and social factors. Chronic low back pain is conceptualized as a complex phenomenon including biological, social and psychological aspects, all of which should be addressed in a treatment program. A multimodal treatment program for chronic low back pain is presented, in which physical activity and cooperation of the patient are the primary targets. Therapeutic aims focus less on pain reduction and emphasize instead pain control, individual responsibility of the patient, and early reintegration into the working environment. The specific goals of the program are to increase the physical abilities of the patients (i. e., flexibility, strength and endurance), to increase patients' knowledge and the use of body mechanics and back protection techniques, to decrease medication-intake, to decrease dependency on the medical community, to improve patients' own positive coping skills and levels of emotional control, to increase the patient's activity level at home and to facilitate a return to work. METHODS: A total of 90 disabled patients with chronic low back pain were admitted to an 8-week program of functional restoration and behavioral support. The program consisted of a pre-program (3 weeks: education, stretching and calisthenic exercises) and an intensive treatment period (aerobics, functional strength and endurance exercises, back exercises, cognitive behavioral group therapy, relaxation training, socioeconomic and vocational counseling) which took place for 5 weeks, 7 h a day, on an outpatient basis. Apart from a medical examination and a personal interview, the patients' physical impairment, pain descriptions, and psychological distress (according to different criteria for evaluation) were also measured. This includes variables such as depression, psychovegetative complaints, quality of life and workplace satisfaction, disability, and coping with disease. Measurements were repeated at the end of the 8-week program, and after 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: In total 84 patients (94 %) were examined following treatment. There was a statistically significant improvement in flexibility, strength, lifting capacity, and endurance measurements ( p < 0.001) at the end of the treatment. In addition, significant reductions in pain, disability, depression, and psychovegetative signs were demonstrated ( p < 0.001). There was a decreased use of medical treatment for back pain following the program, with 42 % of the patients refraining from the intake of analgesics, followed by a significant reduction in physiotherapy and the consultation of physicians. Assessment of the patients' reported increased activity levels at home also supported findings that statistical improvements were significant. Sixty-three percent of the patients were found to have returned to active, productive work following discharge from the program. Most of the improvements remained stable at the 6- and 12-month follow-up examinations. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the multimodal program of functional restoration, not only concerning positive changes in somatic, psychological and physical variables, but also with respect to the number of patients who returned to work. Our methods are also compared with the discrepant results of multimodal treatment in the United States and Scandinavia.