Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation for Chronic Widespread Musculoskeletal Pain: Results from Daily Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence for the efficacy of a multi-component approach for chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain (CWP) has been reported, although the effects are overall moderate and this approach has rarely been investigated in real life. AIM: The aim of the study was to describe the effects of a 15-week multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme on pain, activities and participation in patients with CWP. METHODS: The current retrospective study used data which were routinely gathered on all consecutive patients with CWP referred to a rehabilitation programme over a 21-month period. The 15-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme consisted of cognitive behavioural therapy and exercise, as well as individual and group sessions with additional treatment modalities. Assessments included the Pain Disability Index (PDI), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), numerical scales for pain and fatigue, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), the one-minute stair-climb test and the RAND-36. Paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were carried out to analyse changes over time. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included [mean age 44.1 (standard deviation 12.9) years], 143 (87%) women). Discharge data were available for 154 patients (93%). All outcomes showed statistically significant improvements between admission and discharge (p<0.05), with the largest effect sizes (>1.0) observed for the COPM. A longer duration of complaints was associated with less improvement in the PDI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In daily rehabilitation practice, a 15-week multidisciplinary treatment programme for patients with CWP showed statistically significant improvements in pain, activities and participation over time. Future studies are needed further to substantiate the long-term cost-effectiveness, and to identify the patients who benefit the most.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".