M. Pfingsten

Back pain in the German adult population: prevalence, severity, and sociodemographic correlates in a multiregional survey.

Study Design. A population-based cross-sectional multiregion postal survey. Objective. To provide a descriptive epidemiology of the prevalence and severity of back pain in German adults and to analyze sociodemographic correlates for disabling back pain within and across regions. Summary of Background Data. Back pain is a leading health problem in Germany. However, comprehensive population-based evidence on the severity of back pain is still fragmentary for this country. Despite earlier findings concerning large prevalence differences across regions, systematic explanations remain to be ascertained. Methods. Questionnaire data were collected for 9263 subjects in 5 German cities and regions (population-based random samples, postal questionnaire). Point, 1-year, and lifetime prevalence were assessed using direct questions, and graded back pain was determined using the Graded Chronic Pain Scale. Poststratification was applied to adjust for cross-regional sociodemographic differences. Results. Point-prevalence was 37.1%, 1-year prevalence 76.0%, and lifetime prevalence 85.5%. A substantial minority had severe (Grade II, 8.0%) or disabling back pain (Grade III–IV, 11.2%). Subjects with a low educational level reported substantially more disabling back pain. This variable was an important predictor for large cross-regional differences in the burden of back pain. Conclusion. Back pain is a highly prevalent condition in Germany. Disabling back pain in this country may be regarded as part of a social disadvantage syndrome. Educational level should receive greater attention in future cross-regional comparisons of back pain.

Validation of the German version of the Fear‐Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)

Fearful avoidance of physical activities is a major factor in low back pain (LBP) and disability. In 1993 Waddell et al. developed the Fear‐Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) focusing on patients’ beliefs about how physical activity and work affect LBP. The focus of our study was to analyse and validate the German version of the FABQ. Three‐hundred and two consecutive LBP outpatients participating on a functional restoration programme filled in the FABQ. Factor analysis yielded three factors which accounted for nearly 65% of the total variance of the questionnaire. Whereas the factor ‘physical activity’ (8.9% of the variance) remained the same as in the English version, the second factor of the original version split into two: one related to, ‘work as cause of pain’ (43.4% of the variance) and the other to patients’ assumptions of their probable return to work (11.8% of the variance). Both work‐related subscales showed a good internal consistency (α =0.89, resp. α =0.94), whereas the consistency of the subscale 3 ‘physical activity’ was only modest (α =0.64). Test–re‐test reliability score was fair to good for the whole scale (r =0.87;n =30). Regression analysis demonstrated that fear‐avoidance beliefs account for the highest proportion of variance (35%) regarding disability in activities of daily living and work loss. Patients out of work demonstrated more fear‐avoidance beliefs in comparison to those who were still working. It can be concluded that the German version of the FAQB is a reliable and valid instrument, but it shows a different factor structure from the original English version. The FABQ has been proven to identify patients with maladaptive beliefs which have to be focused on in proper treatment.

Effectiveness of a multimodal treatment program for chronic low-back pain

&NA; In recent years, multidisciplinary pain programs were seen to successfully treat patients by basing treatment on a combination of physical exercise and psychological interventions. However, in spite of their effectiveness, it still remains to be clarified exactly which features of these programs were responsible for patient improvement. Cognitive‐behavioral models posit that improvement is due, in part, to changes in patient coping strategies. Nonetheless, as reflected by the conflicting opinions present in the literature, it is questionable whether a so‐called ‘cognitive shift’ is an accurate indicator for return to work of disabled patients. Ninety patients with chronic low back pain took part in a multidisciplinary treatment program. Therapeutic environment reinforces wellness behavior and enhances the patients’ sense of control over their pain and resulting disability. The main therapeutic target point was to facilitate return to work. Ways of coping were measured by a well studied coping inventory in the German language (FEKB). Factor analysis revealed three factors: ‘catastrophizing’, ‘search for information’ and ‘cognitive control’. In addition, assessment included measurements of pain intensity, depression, disability, flexibility of the lumbar spine, and different performance parameters. All of them were measured prior to and at the end of treatment, and following intervals of 6 and 12 months after discharge from program. Measurements showed significant changes over time, but more importantly, nearly all results were seen to stabilize at the 6‐ and 12‐month evaluation following treatment. The coping strategies demonstrated little or poor change. In addition, coping measures and change in coping behavior showed poor prognostic relevance. But other psycho‐social parameters like self‐evaluation of potential return‐to‐work, application for pension, the length of pre‐absence from work, and a decrease in subjective disability following treatment were effective indicators for ‘back‐to‐work’. Other objective parameters, such as medical history, physical impairment and general physical variables were seen to have little predictive value in determining a return to work. The results suggest that the primary target point for further investigation is the analysis of the patients’ beliefs about their pain. Our results indicate that future research must be attentive to the complex interactions between environmental factors and the coping demands posed by the specific nature of pain problems.

[Multimodal pain therapy: principles and indications].

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.

Chronifizierungsausmaß von Schmerzerkrankungen

ZusammenfassungHintergrund: Die Beschreibung von Schmerzsyndromen ist durch eine Diagnose allein nicht ausreichend gewährleistet; erst die Angabe der Krankheitsschwere ermöglicht sowohl die Indikation der entsprechenden Behandlung als auch eine Vergleichbarkeit von Fällen. Patienten und Methode: In einer multizentrischen Studie wurde bei 542 Patienten das aus der Mainzer Arbeitsgruppe um Gerbershagen 1986 vorgestellte Stadienmodell der Chronifizierung ermittelt und in Abhängigkeit von Patienten- und Diagnosemerkmalen sowie im Hinblick auf seine parametrischen Eigenschaften analysiert. Ergebnisse und Diskussionen: Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung bestätigen die gute Validität des Verfahrens im Hinblick auf seine Unabhängigkeit von schmerzspezifischen Parametern. Es besteht theoriegemäß eine gute Übereinstimmung zum Ausmaß der emotionalen Befindlichkeit (Depression), zur subjektiven Beeinträchtigung und zum Ausmaß der Arbeitsunfähigkeit. Die Ergebnisse zeigen auch Ansätze für Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten. Einige der berücksichtigten Kriterien sind vermutlich überflüssig, während der zusätzliche Einbezug des subjektiven Beeinträchtigungserlebens notwendig erscheint. Ob ein übergreifendes Graduierungsmodell für verschiedene Schmerzerkrankungen überhaupt valide sein kann, muss eine weitergehende Analyse zeigen.AbstractIntroduction: Chronic pain is an individually variable experience, incorporating physical, psychological and social dimensions. Chronic pain occurs in a broad spectrum of severity; therefore, a grading procedure is of crucial importance in clinical research and in epidemiologic studies.The Mainz Pain Staging System is an interview-administered, multi-dimensional measure of chronic pain severity. The system suggests grading chronic pain in terms of 4 axes: time (persistence), spreading of pain site, medication use, and health care utilization. The whole scale consist of 10 items. The resulting score is used to classify the pain problem in three stages (I, II, III). Analysing the broader validity and parametric properties of the staging system is the purpose of the present study. Methods: The staging system and psychosocial data were administered to 542 consecutive patients of different diagnoses who attended one of six pain clinics in the year 1995/96. In a time period of 3 months since first contact, treatment procedures were registered. Three months after first contact patients rated the effectiveness of treatment concerning reduction of pain intensity. Results: According to the criteria of the staging system 25% of the sample belonged to each stage I and stage III, whereas 50% were classified to stage II. As a measure of validity, chronic pain status demonstrated significant correlation with psychological impairment, disability and time off work, whereas there was no correlation to pain intensity and persistence of pain. Surprisingly we found no difference in amount and quality of treatment between patients who were graded as severe pain patients (stage III) and the other stages. Furthermore, effectiveness of treatment also did not differ between the three stages. We made several proposals for optimizing the staging system. Conclusion: Given the high prevalence of recurrent and chronic pain as well as the broadness of severity, an important issue on further research is identification of factors which influence the chronification process. For this purpose improved measures of graded classification of pain status are needed.

Effects of Two Guideline Implementation Strategies on Patient Outcomes in Primary Care : A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Study Design. Cluster randomized controlled trial. Objective. To improve quality of care for patients with low back pain (LBP) a multifaceted general practitioner education alone and in combination with motivational counseling by practice nurses has been implemented in German general practices. We studied effects on functional capacity (main outcome), days in pain, physical activity, quality of life, or days of sick leave (secondary outcomes) compared with no intervention. Summary of Background Data. International research has lead to the development of the German LBP guideline for general practitioners. However, there is still doubt about the most effective implementation strategy. Although effects on process of care have been observed frequently, changes in patient outcomes are rarely seen. Methods. We recruited 1378 patients with LBP in 118 general practices, which were randomized to 1 of 3 study arms: a multifaceted guideline implementation (GI), GI plus training of practice nurses in motivational counseling (MC), and the postal dissemination of the guideline (controls, C). Data were collected (questionnaires and patient interviews) at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Multilevel mixed effects modeling was used to adjust for clustering of data and potential confounders. Results. After 6 months, functional capacity was higher in the intervention groups with a cluster adjusted mean difference of 3.650 between the MC group and controls (95% CI = 0.320–6.979, P = 0.032) and 2.652 between the GI group and controls (95% CI = −0.704 to 6.007, P = 0.120). Intervention effects were more pronounced regarding days in pain per year with an average reduction of 16 (GI) to 17 days (MC) after 6 months (12 and 9 days after 12 months) compared with controls. Conclusion. Active implementation of the German LBP guideline results in slightly better outcomes during 6 months follow-up than its postal dissemination. Results are more distinct when practice nurses are trained in motivational counseling.

Acceptance and perceived barriers of implementing a guideline for managing low back in general practice

BackgroundImplementation of guidelines in clinical practice is difficult. In 2003, the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM) released an evidence-based guideline for the management of low back pain (LBP) in primary care. The objective of this study is to explore the acceptance of guideline content and perceived barriers to implementation.MethodsSeventy-two general practitioners (GPs) participating in quality circles within the framework of an educational intervention study for guideline implementation evaluated the LBP-guideline and its practicability with a standardised questionnaire. In addition, statements of group discussions were recorded using the metaplan technique and were incorporated in the discussion.ResultsMost GPs agree with the guideline content but believe that guideline stipulations are not congruent with patient wishes. Non-adherence to the guideline and contradictory information for patients by other professionals (e.g., GPs, orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists) are important barriers to guideline adherence. Almost half of the GPs have no access to recommended multimodal pain programs for patients with chronic LBP.ConclusionPromoting adherence to the LBP guideline requires more than enhancing knowledge about evidence-based management of LBP. Public education and an interdisciplinary consensus are important requirements for successful guideline implementation into daily practice. Guideline recommendations need to be adapted to the infrastructure of the health care system.Trial registrationBMBF Grant Nr. 01EM0113. FORIS (database for research projects in social science) Reg #: 20040116 [25].

Sex Differences in Presentation, Course, and Management of Low Back Pain in Primary Care

ObjectiveEpidemiologic surveys frequently show that women more often and are more affected by low back pain (LBP). The aim of this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled study was to explore whether presentation and course of LBP of women is different from men, and if sex affects the use of healthcare services for LBP. MethodsData from 1342 [778 (58%) women] patients presenting with LBP in 116 general practices were collected. Patients completed standardized questionnaires before and after consultation and were contacted by phone 4 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months later for standardized interviews by study nurses. Functional capacity was assessed with Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire (HFAQ). Logistic regression models—adjusting for sociodemographic and disease-related data—were conducted to investigate the effect of sex for the use of healthcare services. ResultsWomen had on average a lower functional capacity at baseline and after 12 months. They were more likely to have recurrent or chronic LBP and to have a positive depression score. Being female was associated with a low functional capacity after 12 months (odds ratio: 1.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.2-2.3), but baseline functional capacity, chronicity, and depression were stronger predictors. In univariate analysis, women had a tendency of higher use of healthcare services. Those differences disappeared after adjustment. DiscussionOur findings confirm that women are more severely affected by LBP and have a worse prognosis. Utilization of healthcare services cannot be fully explained by female sex, but rather by a higher impairment by back pain and pain in other parts of the body characteristic of the female population.

Struktur- und Prozessqualität multimodaler Schmerztherapie

Multimodal therapy has demonstrated good clinical effectiveness in the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. However, within the German health system a comprehensive and nationwide access to multimodal therapy is not available and further improvement is therefore necessary. In order to analyze the current status of multimodal therapy and specifically its structural and procedural requirements and qualities, a survey was carried out in 37 pain clinics with established multimodal treatment programs. An anonymous questionnaire was used for data collection. Results demonstrated that a substantial accordance was found between all pain clinics concerning requirements for space, facilities and staff. Structured multidisciplinary assessments were carried out by all pain clinics even though the amount of time allocated for this varied widely. The main focus of multimodal therapy in all facilities was based on a common philosophy with a cognitive-behavioral approach to reduce patient helplessness and avoidance behavior and to increase physical and psychosocial activities as well as to strengthen self-efficacy. Some differences in the ways and means to achieve these goals could be demonstrated in the various programs.

The impact of specialist care for low back pain on health service utilization in primary care patients: A prospective cohort study

Guidelines portray low back pain (LBP) as a benign self‐limiting disease which should be managed mainly by primary care physicians. For the German health care system we analyze which factors are associated with receiving specialist care and how this affects treatment. This is a longitudinal prospective cohort study. General practitioners recruited consecutive adult patients presenting with LBP. Data on physical function, on depression, and on utilization of health services were collected at the first consultation and at follow‐up telephone interviews for a period of 12 months. Logistic regression models were calculated to investigate predictors for specialist consultations and use of specific health care services. Large proportions (57%) of the 1342 patients were seeking additional specialist care. Although patients receiving specialist care had more often chronic LBP and a positive depression score, the association was weak. A total of 623 (46%) patients received some form of imaging, 654 (49%) physiotherapy and 417 (31%) massage. Consulting a specialist remained the strongest predictor for imaging and therapeutic interventions while disease‐related and socio‐demographic factors were less important. Our results suggest that the high use of specialist care in Germany is due to the absence of a functioning primary care gate keeping system for patient selection. The high dependence of health care service utilization on providers rather than clinical factors indicates an unsystematic and probably inadequate management of LBP.