Protocol for identifying and characterising critical physical tasks in the military: Development and validation.

BACKGROUND: When establishing Physical Employment Standards, validity is dependent on the correct identification and characterisation of critical job tasks. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a standardised protocol for the identification, characterisation, and documentation of critical physical job tasks in military occupational specialities in the Swedish Armed Forces (SwAF), and propose a definition of critical physical job tasks for use in the SwAF. METHODS: A protocol was drafted with three content domains, including a preliminary definition. Protocol content validity was iteratively assessed in two consecutive stages where ten subject experts rated relevance and simplicity. A consensus panel revised the protocol after each stage. Content validity index (CVI) was calculated as item-CVI (I-CVI) per each feature and as scale average (S-CVI/Ave) per content domain. Acceptable content validity thresholds were 0.78 and 0.90, respectively. RESULTS: The validated protocol consisted of 35 items with an I-CVI≥0.90 and≥0.80 for relevance and simplicity, respectively. The S-CVI/Ave was 0.97 for relevance and 0.98 for simplicity. The protocol was language reviewed, reorganised for easy use, and approved by the consensus panel. The final protocol includes: background and aim of the protocol, the accepted generic and critical physical job task definitions, protocol instructions, subject expert-qualifications, job task source and characteristics. CONCLUSION: A standardised protocol for identification and characterisation of critical job tasks in SwAF military occupational specialties was developed. The protocol content was rated relevant and simple by experts and will be of importance in future work establishing physical requirements in the SwAF.

Summarizing the effects of different exercise types in chronic neck pain - a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: To date, no consensus exists as to whether one exercise type is more effective than another in chronic neck pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews aimed to summarize the literature on the effect of various exercise types used in chronic neck pain and to assess the certainty of the evidence. METHODS: We searched the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, SportDiscus, and Web of Science (Core Collection) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on adults between 18 and 70 years with chronic neck pain lasting ≥ 12 weeks which investigated the effects of exercises on pain and disability. The included reviews were grouped into motor control exercise (MCE), Pilates exercises, resistance training, traditional Chinese exercise (TCE), and yoga. Study quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2 and the level of certainty for the effects of the exercise through GRADE. A narrative analysis of the results was performed and in addition, meta-analyses when feasible. RESULTS: Our database search resulted in 1,794 systematic reviews. We included 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses including 17,321 participants (overlap not accounted for). The quality of the included reviews ranged from critically low to low (n = 13) to moderate to high (n = 12). We found low to high certainty of evidence that MCE, Pilates exercises, resistance training, TCE, and yoga have short-term positive effects on pain and that all exercise types except resistance training, show positive effects on disability compared to non-exercise controls. We found low to moderate certainty of evidence for conflicting results on pain and disability when the exercise types were compared to other exercise interventions in the short-term as well as in intermediate/long-term apart for yoga, as no long-term results were available. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings show low to high certainty of evidence for positive effects on pain and disability of the various exercise types used in chronic neck pain compared to non-exercise interventions, at least in the short-term. Based on our results, no optimal exercise intervention for patients with chronic neck pain can be recommended, since no large differences between the exercise types were shown here. Because the quality of the included systematic reviews varied greatly, future systematic reviews need to increase their methodological quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42022336014.

Evaluation of content validity and feasibility of the eVISualisation of physical activity and pain (eVIS) intervention for patients with chronic pain participating in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain negatively influences most aspects of life, including aerobic capacity and physical function. The "eVISualisation of physical activity and pain" (eVIS) intervention was developed to facilitate individualized physical activity for treatment in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs (IPRPs). The objective of this study was to evaluate the content validity and feasibility of the eVIS intervention prior to an effectiveness trial. METHODS: In order to determine pre-clinical content validity, experts (n = 10) (patients, caregivers, researchers) participated in three assessment rounds using a Likert-scale survey where relevance, simplicity, and safety were rated, whereafter the intervention was revised. Item-content validity index (I-CVI), average, and overall CVI were used to quantify ratings. To determine content validity and feasibility in the clinical context, experts (n = 8) (patients and physiotherapists) assessed eVIS after a 2-3-week test trial, with the feasibility aspects acceptability, demand, implementation, limited efficacy-testing, and practicality in focus. Additional expert interviews (with physiotherapists, physicians) were conducted on two incomplete areas. RESULTS: The intervention was iteratively revised and refined throughout the study. After three assessment and revision rounds, the I-CVI ratings for relevance, simplicity, and safety ranged between 0.88 and 1.00 (≥0.78) in most items, giving eVIS "excellent" content validity. In the IPRP context, the intervention emerged as valid and feasible. Additional interviews further contributed to its content validity and clinical feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed domains and features of the eVIS intervention are deemed valid in its content and feasible in the IPRP context. The consecutive step-by-step evaluation process enabled careful intervention development with revisions to be made in close collaboration with stakeholders. Findings implicate a robust base ahead of the forthcoming effectiveness trial.

Prognostic Factors for Quality of Life After Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Pain-A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (hrQoL) is a core outcome in evaluating interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation (IPR). This systematic review aimed to identify prognostic factors for hrQoL at least six months after IPR in chronic pain patients. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL until September 2020. Included were prognostic studies on the outcome hrQoL in adults aged 18 to 67 years with chronic pain (excluding malignancies, systemic-, inflammatory or degenerative joint diseases) who had undergone IPR. Studies were assessed with The Quality in Prognostic Studies-tool. Potential prognostic factors at baseline for the domains pain, psychological and physical functioning were qualitatively synthesized for hrQoL. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the level of evidence. RESULTS: Fourteen studies on 6,668 participants (mean age 37.4-52.8 y), with musculoskeletal pain/fibromyalgia and a pain duration ranging between 13.1 and 177.4 months were considered eligible. With a very low certainty of evidence, pain intensity, emotional distress, and physical functioning at baseline were inconsistent for prediction of hrQoL and pain duration was not predictive. With low certainty of evidence, fewer pain sites, lower levels of negative cognitive behavioral factors, and higher levels of positive cognitive behavioral factors predicted a better outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, making it difficult to reach definitive conclusions at present. Future studies with a predefined core set of predictors investigating hrQoL in patients with chronic pain after IPR are needed.

Summarizing the effects of different exercise types in chronic low back pain - a systematic review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: In chronic LBP (CLBP), guideline-endorsed treatment is to stay active, return to normal activity, and to exercise. Several reviews on various exercise types used in CLBP have been published. We aimed to identify systematic reviews of common exercise types used in CLBP, to appraise their quality, and to summarize and compare their effect on pain and disability. METHODS: We searched the databases OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE LIBRARY, and WEB OF SCIENCE (Core collection) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on adults between 18 and 70 years of age suffering from chronic or recurrent LBP for a period of at least 12 weeks, which investigated the effects of exercises on pain and disability. All searches were conducted without language restriction. The search was performed up until 2022-01-26. The included reviews were grouped into nine exercise types: aerobic training, aquatic exercises, motor control exercises (MCE), resistance training, Pilates, sling exercises, traditional Chinese exercises (TCE), walking, and yoga. The study quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2. For each exercise type, a narrative analysis was performed, and the level of evidence for the effects of exercise was assessed through GRADE. RESULTS: Our database search resulted in 3,475 systematic reviews. Out of the 253 full texts that were screened, we included 45 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included reviews ranged from high to critically low. Due to large heterogeneity, no meta-analyses were performed. We found low-to-moderate evidence of mainly short-term and small beneficial effects on pain and disability for MCE, Pilates, resistance training, TCE, and yoga compared to no or minimal intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the effect of various exercise types used in CLBP on pain and disability varies with no major difference between exercise types. Many of the included systematic reviews were of low-to-moderate quality and based on randomized controlled trials with high risk of bias. The conflicting results seen, undermine the certainty of the results leading to very-low-to-moderate quality of evidence for our results. Future systematic reviews should be of higher quality to minimize waste of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: Reg no 190409 Registration date 01AUG 2020.

Effectiveness of the eVISualisation of physical activity and pain intervention (eVIS) in Swedish Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programmes: study protocol for a registry-based randomised controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Living with chronic pain often involves negative consequences. Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programmes (IPRP) is considered superior to single-treatment measures in patients with chronic pain. Despite this, effects emerge suboptimal and more than 20% of patients deteriorate in patient-reported physical health outcomes after IPRP. A novel e-Health intervention, eVISualisation (eVIS) of physical activity and pain, was systematically developed to facilitate individualisation of physical activity levels. By adding elements of data collection, visualisation and communication of objectively measured physical activity and patient-reported outcomes (pain intensity, interference of pain, pharmaceutical consumption) to existing treatment modalities in IPRP, the IPRP team acquires prerequisites to adapt advice and physical activity prescriptions and to evaluate set activity goals. The overall aim is twofold. First, the aim is to evaluate the feasibility of the subsequent registry-based randomised controlled clinical trial (R-RCT). Second, the aim is to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the eVIS-intervention as a supplement to IPRP on our defined primary (physical health) and secondary outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In the R-RCT, recruitment of 400 patients with chronic pain will be performed at 15 IPRP units. A random allocation to either IPRP + eVIS or to control group that will receive IPRP only will be performed. Data from the initial 30 participants completing the study period (6 months) will be included in a pilot study, where key feasibility outcomes (recruitment, randomisation, implementation, treatment integrity, data collection procedure, preliminary outcome measures) will be evaluated. Outcome variables will be extracted from the web application Pain And TRaining ON-line (PATRON) and from six national registries. Multivariate statistics and repeated measure analyses will be performed. Quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated for cost-effectiveness evaluation. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: The Swedish Ethics Review Board granted approval (Dnr 2021/02109). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05009459. Protocol V.1.

The Context Matters: A Retrospective Analysis of Life Stage at Chronic Pain Onset in Relation to Pain Characteristics and Psychosocial Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Developmental life stage at chronic pain onset differs among chronic pain patients. Although pain affects multiple life domains, it is unknown whether the timing of chronic pain onset relates to pain characteristics and psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate differences in pain characteristics and psychosocial outcomes in patients at different developmental life stages at chronic pain onset. METHODS: Cross-sectional baseline data from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (2009 to 2016) were used, selecting the middle-aged patients (45-65 years, n=6225) reporting chronic nonmalignant pain. Patients were categorized into three groups, depending on their developmental life stage at chronic pain onset: early onset (age ≤30 years), intermediate onset (age 31-45 years), and late onset (age ≥46 years). Pain characteristics and psychosocial outcomes were assessed with validated self-reported measures. RESULTS: One-way MANCOVA indicated differences in number of pain locations and psychosocial outcomes among the groups. Post hoc analysis showed differences in the trends for how groups differed on outcome domains. Overall, patients with earlier chronic pain onset showed significantly poorer psychosocial outcomes and more spreading of pain. CONCLUSION: Developmental life stage at chronic pain onset is associated with different pain outcomes. Pain onset early in life is linked to worse outcomes in multiple domains, pointing to a need for identifying these patients early.

What Is the Effectiveness of Different Duration Interdisciplinary Treatment Programs in Patients with Chronic Pain? A Large-Scale Longitudinal Register Study.

Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability globally. Interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation (IMPR) targets pain with a bio-psycho-social approach, often delivered as composite programs. However, evidence of optimal program duration for the rehabilitation to succeed remains scarce. This study evaluated the effectiveness of different duration IMPR-programs-using within- and between-effects analyses in a pragmatic multicenter register-based controlled design. Using the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation, data from fifteen clinics specialized in chronic pain rehabilitation across Sweden were retrieved. Participants were patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain who had taken part in short (4-9 weeks; n = 924), moderate (10 weeks; n = 1379), or long (11-18 weeks; n = 395) IMPR programs. Longitudinal patient-reported outcome data were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and at a 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, presented as perceived physical and mental health (SF-36). Secondary outcomes included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), pain intensity (NRS 0-10), the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), and perceived health (EQ-5D). Overall, all groups showed improvements. No clinically important effect emerged for different duration IMPR. In conclusion, while our results showed that patients following IMPR report improvement across a bio-psycho-social specter, a longer program duration was no more effective than a shorter one.

Prognostic factors for improved physical and emotional functioning one year after interdisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic pain: Results from a national quality registry in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate prognostic factors for physical and emotional functioning following interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation, by targeting patients' baseline characteristics and health measures. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 2,876 patients from 38 specialist clinics across Sweden, who were completing interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation programmes, was followed through the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation, from initial assessment to 12-month follow-up. Using logistic regression, baseline data were regressed to predict improvement in Physical functioning and Emotional functioning, fused by principal component analyses using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Employment status emerged as having the largest effect sizes in both Physical functioning and Emotional functioning; Working: odds ratio (OR) 2.05 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.64-2.56) and OR 1.59 (95% CI 1.27-1.98), respectively. Strong beliefs in restored health, better initial emotional health, lower levels of pain and pain interference, and younger age all predicted Physical functioning. European origin, higher levels of general activity, and sense of life control all predicted Emotional functioning. Worse initial physical and emotional health predicted the corresponding dependent outcomes. CONCLUSION: Employment was consistently found to be an important prognostic factor, suggesting the significance of avoiding delay in interdisciplinary multimodal pain rehabilitation. A positive treatment expectancy was of importance. In general, multidimensional measures indicated that better initial status was more favourable; however, inconsistency implies a complex prognostic picture.

Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS-aspects of interrater agreement.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have been performed to identify important prognostic factors for outcomes after rehabilitation of patients with chronic pain, and there is a need to synthesize them through systematic review. In this process, it is important to assess the study quality and risk of bias. The "Quality In Prognosis Studies" (QUIPS) tool has been developed for this purpose and consists of several prompting items categorized into six domains, and each domain is judged on a three-grade scale (low, moderate or high risk of bias). The aim of the present study was to determine the interrater agreement of the risk of bias assessment in prognostic studies of patients with chronic pain using QUIPS and to elaborate on the use of this instrument. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of prognostic factors for long-term outcomes after multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic pain. Two researchers rated the risk of bias in 43 published papers in two rounds (15 and 28 papers, respectively). The interrater agreement and Cohen's quadratic weighted kappa coefficient (κ) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated in all domains and separately for the first and second rounds. RESULTS: The raters agreed in 61% of the domains (157 out of 258), with similar interrater agreement in the first (59%, 53/90) and second rounds (62%, 104/168). The overall weighted kappa coefficient (kappa for all domains and all papers) was weak: κ = 0.475 (95%CI = 0.358-0.601). A "minimal agreement" between the raters was found in the first round, κ = 0.323 (95%CI = 0.129-0.517), but increased to "weak agreement" in the second round, κ = 0.536 (95%CI = 0.390-0.682). CONCLUSION: Despite a relatively low interrater agreement, QUIPS proved to be a useful tool in assessing the risk of bias when performing a meta-analysis of prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation, since it demands of raters to discuss and investigate important aspects of study quality. Some items were particularly hard to differentiate in-between, and a learning phase was required to increase the interrater agreement. This paper highlights several aspects of the tool that should be kept in mind when rating the risk of bias in prognostic studies, and provides some suggestions on common pitfalls to avoid during this process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016025339; registered 05 February 2016.

Prognostic Factors for Physical Functioning After Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation in Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate prognostic factors for long-term (≥6 mo) physical functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain following multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MDR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL revealed 25 original research reports, published 1983-2016, (n=9436). Potential prognostic factors relating to initial pain and physical and psychological functioning were synthesized qualitatively and quantitatively in random effects meta-analyses. The level of evidence (LoE) was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Pain-related factors (intensity and chronicity) were not associated with function/disability at long-term follow-up, odds ratio (OR)=0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-1.07 and OR=0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00, respectively (moderate LoE). A better function at follow-up was predicted by Physical factors; higher levels of initial self-reported functioning, OR=1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13 (low LoE), and Psychological factors; low initial levels of emotional distress, OR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92, low levels of cognitive and behavioral risk factors, OR=0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93 and high levels of protective cognitive and behavioral factors, OR=1.49; 95% CI, 1.17-1.90 (moderate LoE). DISCUSSION: While pain intensity and long-term chronicity did not predict physical functioning in chronic pain patients after MDR, poor pretreatment physical and psychological functioning influenced the prognosis negatively. Thus, treatment should further target and optimize these modifiable factors and an increased focus on positive, psychological protective factors may perhaps provide an opening for yet untapped clinical gains.

Predictors of multidisciplinary rehabilitation outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major public health problem. Early prediction for optimal treatment results has received growing attention, but there is presently a lack of evidence regarding what information such proactive management should be based on. This study protocol, therefore, presents our planned systematic review and meta-analysis on important predictive factors for health and work-related outcomes following multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MDR) in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We aim to perform a synthesis of the available evidence together with a meta-analysis of published peer-reviewed original research that includes predictive factors preceding MDR. Included are prospective studies of adults with benign, chronic (> 3 months) musculoskeletal pain diagnoses who have taken part in MDR. In the studies, associations between personal and rehabilitation-based factors and the outcomes of interest are reported. Outcome domains are pain, physical functioning including health-related quality of life, and work ability with follow-ups of 6 months or more. We will use a broad, explorative approach to any presented predictive factors (demographic, symptoms-related, physical, psychosocial, work-related, and MDR-related) and these will be analyzed through (a) narrative synthesis for each outcome domain and (b) if sufficient studies are available, a quantitative synthesis in which variance-weighted pooled proportions will be computed using a random effects model for each outcome domain. The strength of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. DISCUSSION: The strength of this systematic review is that it aims for a meta-analysis of prospective cohort or randomized controlled studies by performing an extensive search of multiple databases, using an explorative study approach to predictive factors, rather than building on single predictor impact on the outcome or on predefined hypotheses. In this way, an overview of factors central to MDR outcome can be made and will help strengthen the evidence base and inform a wide readership including health care practitioners and policymakers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016025339.