[Booster treatments in interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy : Preparing structural and process parameters for the implementation of cross-sectoral booster treatments]. / Boosterbehandlungen in der interdisziplinären multimodalen Schmerztherapie : Vorbereitung von Struktur- und Prozessparametern zur Umsetzung von sektorenübergreifenden Boosterbehandlungen.

Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT) is an established procedure in the treatment of chronic pain. In daily practice, many institutions regard so-called booster units as an integral part of IMPT. However, no consensual recommendations and evidence for booster concepts are available to date. This article uses the results of a discussion between clinical experts in the field of IMPT at the German Pain Congress in 2022 in order to show the status quo in care. It has been shown that currently applied booster offers vary greatly in terms of time intervals, intensities, therapy content and patient selection and that there is a need for structural and process parameters for the implementation of cross-sectoral booster treatments. In conclusion, the authors outline how the development of these parameters will be planned as an expert consensus with the participation of interested institutions and the inclusion of the patient perspective and offer opportunities for participation in this process.

[Self-efficacy expectation as a central concept in interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy : Conceptual horizon, implementation, recording and limits]. / Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung als zentrales Konzept in der interdisziplinären multimodalen Schmerztherapie : Begriffshorizont, Umsetzung, Erfassung und Grenzen.

The concept of self-efficacy expectation shows high relevance for interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMST) aimed at activity and self-regulation due to its theoretical embedding and empirical correlations to the experience of pain. Several issues limit this potential: At the level of the construct definition, there are ambiguities and overlaps with other concepts. A pain-specific transfer to IMST has not yet been performed. With the help of existing instruments, only a small part of what an IMST can achieve in terms of increasing pain-specific competence seems to be detectable. In perspective, a clarification of terms by including patients and the conception of a questionnaire based on this is indicated.

[Emotional competence of patients with chronic pain : A self- and third-party assessment]. / Emotionale Kompetenzen bei Menschen mit chronifizierten Schmerzen : Ein Selbst- und Fremdbild.

RESEARCH QUESTION: The aim of the study is to assess the status quo of emotional competence in people with chronic pain. How do patients experience themselves regarding to their ability to perceive, express, and regulate emotions? And does this assessment coincide with the assessment of emotional competence (EC) by mental health professionals? METHODS: The study took place in the context of interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy at an outpatient clinic in N = 184 adult German-speaking individuals with non-cancer-related chronic pain. EC was assessed at the end of therapy using the self- and third-party assessment scales of the Emotional Competence Questionnaire. The external assessment was performed by the mental health team. Standard scores were created using the norm sample provided by questionnaires. These were analyzed descriptively and inferentially. RESULTS: Self-perceived EC was average (Mself_total = 99.31; SD = 7.78). The mental health professionals predominantly rated the emotional competence of the patients significantly lower (Mexternal_total = 94,70; SD = 7,81; F(1.179) = 35,73; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.17). Emotional expressivity, as a component of EC, was externally rated as below average (Mexpressivity_external = 89.14, SD = 10.33). DISCUSSION: Patients with chronic pain rate themselves as unimpaired in terms of their daily emotional awareness, expression, and regulation abilities. At the same time, mental health professionals rate these same individuals as significantly less emotionally competent. The question remains open as to what extent the divergent assessments can be explained by assessment bias.