BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.
OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.
MAIN RESULTS: From 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions.
Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.
BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation programs for neck and shoulder pain require substantial staff and financial resources. Despite questionable scientific evidence of their effectiveness, they are widely used.
Neck and shoulder complaints are common among working age adults and they are often associated with physical work load and stress. Pain in the neck and shoulder area cause biopsychosocial difficulties for the patient, especially if disability due to pain is prolonged. To help patients with biopsychosocial problems, or to prevent their development, multidisciplinary biopsychosocial programs are used for rehabilitation for patients with neck and shoulder pain. Nevertheless, multidisciplinary treatment programmes are often laborious and rather long processes and require good collaboration between the patient, the rehabilitation team and the work place.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain among working age adults.
SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewed studies for this review were electronically identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLIT, CENTRAL, Medic, the Science Citation Index, reference checking and consulting experts in the rehabilitation field. The original search was planned and performed for more broad area of musculoskeletal disorders. Trials on neck and shoulder pain were separated afterwards. The literature search was updated in November 2002 by electronically searching MEDLINE and EMBASE.
SELECTION CRITERIA: From all references identified in our original search, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Trials had to assess the effectiveness of biopsychosocial rehabilitation for working age adults suffering from neck and shoulder pain. The rehabilitation program was required to be multidisciplinary, i.e., it had to consist of a physician's consultation plus either a psychological, social or vocational intervention, or a combination of these.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors blinded to journal and author selected the trials that met the specified inclusion criteria. Two experts in the field of rehabilitation evaluated the clinical relevance and applicability of the findings of the selected studies for actual clinical use. Two other authors blinded to journal and author extracted the data and assessed the main results and the methodological quality of the studies, using standardized forms. Finally, a qualitative analysis was performed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation.
MAIN RESULTS: After screening 1808 abstracts, and the references of 65 reviews, we found only two relevant studies that satisfied our criteria. No more studies were found for this update. One of the studies was considered to be a methodologically low quality RCT and the other one was a methodologically low quality CCT. The clinical relevance of included studies was satisfactory. There was limited scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there appears to be little scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation compared with other rehabilitation facilities for neck and shoulder pain. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is a commonly used intervention for chronic neck and shoulder complaints, therefore we see an urgent need for high quality trials in this field.
Background: Non-malignant musculoskeletal pain is an increasing problem in western countries. Fibromyalgia syndrome is an increasing recognised chronic musculoskeletal disorder. Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for fibromyalgia and widespread musculoskeletal pain among working age adults. Search methods: An electronic search was conducted and included MEDLINE from 1966, PsycLIT from 1967 and EMBASE from 1980 to April 1998. The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Trials Register was searched as well as, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR). The references of identified articles and reviews were checked, studies published in the Finnish medical database Medic from 1978 to 1998 screened and the Science Citation Index searched. Content experts were also contacted for additional or unpublished studies. Selection criteria: From all references found in our original search, we selected all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs). Trials had to assess the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients suffering from fibromyalgia and widespread musculoskeletal pain among working age adults. The rehabilitation program was required to be multidisciplinary; that is, it had to consist of a physician's consultation, plus a psychological, social or vocational intervention, or a combination of both. Data collection and analysis: Four reviewers independently selected the RCTs and CCTs that met the specified inclusion criteria. Two experts in the field of rehabilitation evaluated the relevance and applicability of the findings of the selected studies to actual clinical use. Two other reviewers extracted the data and assessed the main results and the methodological quality of the studies using standardized forms. Finally, a qualitative analysis was performed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Main results: After screening 1808 abstracts, and the references of 65 reviews, we found only seven relevant studies (1050 patients) that met our inclusion criteria. None of these were considered, methodologically, a high quality randomized controlled trial. Four of the included RCTs on fibromyalgia were graded low quality and suggest no quantifiable benefits. The three included RCTs on widespread musculoskeletal pain showed that based on limited evidence, overall, no evidence of efficacy was observed. However, behavioral treatment and stress management appear to be important components. Education combined with physical training showed some positive effects in long term follow up. Authors' conclusions: We conclude that there appears to be little scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for these musculoskeletal disorders. However, multidisciplinary rehabilitation is a commonly used intervention for chronic musculoskeletal disorders, which cause much personal suffering and substantial economic loss to the society. There is a need for high quality trials in this field.
Sixty-five studies that evaluated the efficacy of multidisciplinary treatments for chronic back pain were included in a meta-analysis. Within- and between-group effect sizes revealed that multidisciplinary treatments for chronic pain are superior to no treatment, waiting list, as well as single-discipline treatments such as medical treatment or physical therapy. Moreover, the effects appeared to be stable over time. The beneficial effects of multidisciplinary treatment were not limited to improvements in pain, mood and interference but also extended to behavioral variables such as return to work or use of the health care system. These results tend to support the efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment; however, these results must be interpreted cautiously as the quality of the study designs and study descriptions is marginal. Suggestions for improvement in research designs as well as appropriate reports of research completed are provided.
Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.
OBJECTIVES:
To review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
All studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.
MAIN RESULTS:
From 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions. Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Patients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
