[Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Health Regulatory Focus Scale]. / Psychometrische Überprüfung der deutschen Version der Health Regulatory Focus Scale.

Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Health Regulatory Focus Scale Objectives: This study examines the psychometric properties of the German version of the Health Regulatory Focus Scale (HRFS), which measures health-related promotion- and prevention-based motivation. METHODS: The study is based on data from the 28th (N = 332) and 29th survey wave (N = 253) of the Saxony Longitudinal Study. It examines item characteristics, factorial, convergent and prognostic validity as well as the influence of sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: The psychometric properties of the German version are excellent, after removal of Item 5. A two-factor structure as well as good validity were confirmed. CONCLUSION: The shortened German version of the HRFS is well suited to capturing the health related regulatory focus of this test and makes it useful in the area of health promotion and prevention.

Effectiveness of behavioural medical rehabilitation under real-life conditions in Germany: A propensity-score matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In Germany, behavioural medical rehabilitation programmes have been implemented for patients with musculoskeletal disorders and additional mental health comorbidity. The aim of this cohort study is to assess the relative effectiveness of behavioural medical rehabilitation under real-life conditions. DESIGN: Participants received either a common or behavioural medical rehabilitation programme. Propensity score matching was used to provide balanced samples of both groups (German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00016404). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 360 patients treated in behavioural medical rehabilitation were compared with 360 matched controls. The mean age of study participants was approximately 53.5 years (standard deviation (SD)=7.0 years) and 74.0% were women. RESULTS: No significant and clinical meaningful differences were found in return to work, applications for disability pension, and the number of patients receiving social security benefits in the year after rehabilitation. However, participants in behavioural medical rehabilitation reported better self-rated work ability, physical functioning and self-management skills, and decreased pain disability and fear-avoidance beliefs 10 months after rehabilitation. Standardized effect sizes were between 0.13 and 0.22. CONCLUSION: Behavioural medical rehabilitation had no clinical meaningful effect on maintaining and restoring work ability. However, behavioural medical rehabilitation affected pain and disease management skills 10 months after completing the rehabilitation programme.