[Pain therapy care in Germany-Do patients receiving day care differ from those receiving outpatient or inpatient care at the start of treatment? : A further evaluation based on the KEDOQ-pain data set]

Evaluating an early Interdisciplinary Multimodal Assessment for Patients at Risk of Developing Chronic Pain: Results of a Multicentre RCT in Germany

INTRODUCTION

Patients at risk of developing chronic pain are often significantly impaired in their daily, social and work activities. An early interdisciplinary multimodal assessment (IMA) includes a systematically integrated view of medical, psychosocial and functional factors to direct patients to need-based treatment services. This multicentre, randomised, controlled trial examined the effects of an IMA on preventing chronic pain and improving care for adult patients.

METHODS

The intervention group (IG) received an IMA in accordance with standardised guidelines. The control group (CG) was offered a unimodal medical pain assessment (MPA). Data from the Characteristic Pain Intensity (PI) and Disability Score (DS), as primary outcomes, were collected at assessment and 3 and 6 months later together with secondary outcomes (e.g. depression, anxiety, stress, catastrophizing, health-related quality of life).

RESULTS

A total of 620 (68.4%) valid questionnaires were available at the 6-month follow-up. The mean reduction (numerical rating scale, 0-10) in terms of improvement within both groups (IG/CG) was 1.6/1.7 points for PI and 1.9/1.8 points for DS. Most secondary outcomes improved as well. However, the differences between the two groups did not reach statistical significance, although there was a tendency for the IG to have a greater effect on some psychological outcomes. Regarding the recommended treatment approaches, the focus in the IG was more on physical activity and psychological and psychosomatic interventions, whereas in the CG there was also a preference for adjusting the medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Both early MPA and IMA seem to have a positive effect on outcomes such as pain intensity, functional limitations and psychological factors for patients at risk of developing chronic pain. We critically reflect on the results of the primary research question by discussing the limitations in detail and conclude that further research should ensure that the control conditions reflect standard care and that the follow-up period is long enough.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00015443).

Screening of Patient Impairments in an Outpatient Clinic for Suspected Rare Diseases—A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Most rare diseases are chronic conditions with variable impairment of functionality, which can result in a need for rehabilitation. To our knowledge, there are no systematic studies on the rehabilitation needs of patients in centres for rare diseases in the literature. Our hypothesis is that participation of these patients is so limited that there is an increased need for rehabilitation. For this reason, a survey on the need for rehabilitation was carried out in all patients presenting to the centre for rare diseases, in order to assess the need for rehabilitative measures to counteract disturbances in activity and participation. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed to collect data using a written questionnaire from December 2020 to June 2021, including patients presenting personally in the center for rare diseases. Results: Nearly 70% of the participants assessed their own ability to work as critical. Of those surveyed, n = 30 (44.9%) had PDI total ≥ 33 points and, thus, a clear pain-related impairment. Conclusion: The results show functional restrictions in the areas of mental well-being and activity. As expected, the health-related quality of life is reduced as compared to healthy people. Almost half of the participants reported significant pain-related impairments, however, only 9% of all respondents stated that they had received appropriate pain therapy. The results show the need for rehabilitation-specific skills in the care and counseling of patients with rare diseases.

[Physical therapy knowledge, skills, and competencies in the care of people with chronic pain]

BACKGROUND

Between 8 and 16 million people in Germany are affected by chronic pain, causing costs of up to 28.7 billion euros annually. Chronic pain is complex and has biopsychosocial aspects. Physiotherapeutic care requires special knowledge, skills and competencies. A publicly accessible description of these requirements does not currently exist in Germany.

AIM

The aim of the work was to establish a consensus among experts working in Germany regarding the necessary knowledge, skills and competencies of physiotherapists in the care of people with chronic pain.

METHODS

Two-stage Delphi procedure with 15 experts. In the first round of questions, knowledge, skills and competencies that had previously been identified in a systematic literature review were assessed and supplemented. In the second round of questions, the experts evaluated the additions made in the first round of questions with regard to their relevance.

RESULTS

Of 219 evaluated statements, 124 were classified as absolutely relevant. In addition to anatomical and physiological pain knowledge, mainly educational and communication skills were rated as important.

CONCLUSION

This overview may provide a basis for the development of a competency profile that can be used to develop contents for the modular design and standardisation of curricula in courses of study or training.

[Presentation of an innovative interdisciplinary and cross-sector therapeutic concept for pain patients as part of a regional selective contract]

Hintergrund

Eine gestufte Versorgung in der Behandlung chronisch schmerzkranker Patient*innen ist in Deutschland nur in Ansätzen vorhanden. Vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Pandemiebedingungen hat sich eine Unter- und Fehlversorgung weiter verschärft.

Ziel

Entwicklung und Aufbau eines sektorenübergreifenden Behandlungskonzepts für schmerzkranke Patient*innen im Rahmen eines Selektivvertrags.

Methoden

Eingebettet in bereits vorhandene Versorgungsstrukturen wurden nach vorbezeichneten Kriterien sieben Versorgungspfade (Clinical Pathways, CP) definiert, in die eingeschriebene Patient*innen nach einem interdisziplinären Assessment geleitet werden.

Aufbau

Im CP I verbleiben die Patient*innen in der Regelversorgung. Im CP II wird zusätzlich eine einmalige interprofessionelle Edukation von 3 h zur Prophylaxe weiterer Chronifizierung angeboten. Im CP III gehen die Patient*innen für sechs Monate in eine fachärztlich spezialisierte ambulante Schmerzbehandlung. Das CP IV ist eine teilstationäre multimodale Therapie, bei der viele Präsenztage durch telemedizinische Inhalte mit Unterstützung einer Reha-App ersetzt werden. CP V und VI sind vollstationäre multimodale Behandlungen über acht und 15 Tage. In CP VII kann bei ambulantem psychotherapeutischen Behandlungsbedarf für Patient*innen nach vollstationärer Behandlung zur Überbrückung des Wartezeitraums über sechs Monate eine niederfrequente Psychotherapie erfolgen.

Qualitätssicherung und Evaluation

Die wissenschaftliche Begleitung erfolgt mittels ausgewählter Fragebögen und psychometrischer Testverfahren jeweils drei, sechs und zwölf Monate nach erfolgtem Assessment, um die Inhalte des Vertrags zu evaluieren.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the German Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI-GE)

BACKGROUND

The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) is a screening tool designed to detect symptoms related to Central Sensitization (CS) and Central Sensitivity Syndromes (CSS) by measuring the degree of related phenomena. The objective of this study was to create a German, culturally-adapted version of the CSI and to test its psychometric properties.

METHODS

A German version of the CSI (CSI-GE) was developed, culturally-adapted, and pretested for comprehensibility. The psychometric properties of the resulting version were validated in a clinical study with chronic pain and pain-free control subjects. To assess retest reliability, the CSI-GE was administered twice to a subgroup of patients. Structural validity was tested using factor analyses. To investigate construct validity a hypotheses testing approach was used, including (1) correlations between the CSI-GE and several other well-established questionnaires as well as (2) an investigation of the CSI-GE discriminative power between different subgroups of participants believed to have different degrees of CS.

RESULTS

The CSI-GE showed excellent reliability, including high test-retest characteristics. Factor analyses confirmed a bi-factor dimensionality as has been determined previously. Analysing construct validity 6 out of 11 hypotheses (55%) were met. CSI-GE scores differentiated between subgroups according to expectations. Correlations between CSI-GE scores and other questionnaires suggested that none of the correlated constructs was identical, but there was overlap with other questionnaires based on symptom load. Several correlations did not fit with our current understanding of CS.

CONCLUSION

The CSI-GE appears to be a reliable tool for measuring CS/CSS-related symptomatology. Whether this implies that the CSI-GE measures the degree of CS within an individual subject remains unknown. The resulting score should be interpreted cautiously until further clarification of the construct.

[Characteristic values and test statistical goodness of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) in patients with chronic pain : An evaluation based on the KEDOQ pain dataset]

The Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) was added to the German Pain Questionnaire (DSF) as a self-report measure of health-related quality of life in 2016, replacing the previously used SF-12, which required a license. Both measures have 12 items and include a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). Evaluations with a larger sample on characteristic values and on the test-statistical goodness of the VR-12 in patients with chronic pain are so far missing. Data on the VR-12 and other procedures of the DSF were evaluated from 11,644 patients from 31 centers participating in KEDOQ pain. The patients filled out the DSF before starting a pain therapy treatment. Change sensitivity was determined for 565 patients for whom the VR-12 was available from a follow-up questionnaire of the DSF several months after the initial survey.The reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of the PCS was r_tt = 0.78 and for the MCS r_tt = 0.84. The MCS had significant relationships with the depression, anxiety and stress scales (r = -0.51 to r = -0.72), and the PCS correlated more highly with areas of pain-related impairment (r = -0.48 to r = -0.52). Patients with higher pain chronicity, those with higher pain severity, and those with evidence of high psychological distress described significantly lower health-related quality of life in PCS and MCS. The effect size (ES) of change in terms of improvement in health-related quality of life was ES = 0.33 in the MCS and ES = 0.51 in the PCS.The results are in agreement with the findings of the SF-36 and SF-12 in patient collectives with chronic pain. In summary, they show that the VR-12 is an adequate substitute for the SF-12 in the German pain questionnaire.

[Measurement of pain-related experiential avoidance: analysis of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II-Pain in patients with chronic pain]

Einleitung und Fragestellung

Erlebensvermeidung („experiential avoidance“) stellt einen zentralen störungsrelevanten Prozess im Rahmen der Akzeptanz- und Commitment-Therapie (ACT) dar. Zur Erfassung wurde der Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II (AAQ-II) entwickelt und in den Niederlanden für eine Patientengruppe mit chronischem Schmerz adaptiert und validiert (AAQ-II‑P). Hohe Werte im AAQ-II‑P bedeuten hohe schmerzbezogene Erlebensvermeidung. Ziel unserer Untersuchung ist die Erfassung von schmerzbezogener Erlebensvermeidung mit einer deutschen Version des AAQ-II‑P bei chronischen Schmerzpatienten und die Prüfung psychometrischer Merkmale des Messverfahrens.

Methodik

Der AAQ-II wurde mittels eines Vorwärts-Rückwärts-Verfahrens ins Deutsche übersetzt, für chronischen Schmerz adaptiert (AAQ-II‑P) und von 168 Patienten einer universitären Schmerzambulanz beantwortet. Zusätzlich wurden Daten zu schmerzbedingter Beeinträchtigung (CPG: Schweregrad nach von Korff) und Schmerzkatastrophisieren (PCS) erhoben sowie zu gesundheitsbezogener Lebensqualität (SF-12), Angst und Depressivität (HADS-D). Ebenfalls erfasst wurden allgemeine Persönlichkeitsmerkmale (BFI‑K) und habituelle Achtsamkeit (KIMS-S). Ausgewertet wurden Reliabilität und faktorielle Validität des AAQ-II‑P sowie seine Beziehung zu den anderen psychometrischen Verfahren.

Ergebnisse

Der AAQ-II‑P erzielte eine hohe interne Konsistenz mit α = 0,89 sowie eine eindimensionale Faktorenstruktur mit 61 % aufgeklärter Varianz. Geringe Korrelationen ergaben sich zu Persönlichkeitsdimensionen (maximal r = 0,44 zu Neurotizismus) und Achtsamkeit (maximal r = −0,43 zu Akzeptanz). Ein hoher Zusammenhang fand sich zu Schmerzkatastrophisieren (r = 0,75), Depression (r = 0,73) und Angst (r = 0,66). Die Beziehung zu Lebensqualität war am stärksten ausgeprägt auf der Psychischen Summenskala (r = −0,58).

Diskussion und Schlussfolgerung

Die deutsche Version des AAQ-II‑P hat eine gute Reliabilität und weist hinsichtlich Zuverlässigkeit und Faktorenstruktur hohe Vergleichbarkeit mit der Originalversion auf. Die Beziehungen zu den Skalen der psychometrischen Verfahren sind zumeist in erwarteter Richtung und Höhe. Patienten mit chronischem Schmerz und hoher schmerzbezogener Erlebensvermeidung tendieren deutlich zum Schmerzkatastrophisieren und zeichnen sich durch schlechtere psychische Lebensqualität aus. Dies spricht für die Relevanz des Konstrukts hinsichtlich therapeutischer Zielvariablen.