An Interdisciplinary Multimodal Integrative Healthcare Program for Chronic Spinal Pain and Comorbid Mental Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies evaluating interdisciplinary multimodal interventions for chronic spinal pain often excluded patients with comorbid mental disorders. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of an outpatient secondary care interdisciplinary multimodal integrative healthcare program for individuals experiencing co-occurring chronic spinal pain and mental disorders. METHODS: Participants were 944 patients with chronic spinal pain and comorbid mental disorders. Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, assessed using the Research and Development-36 (RAND-36), and pain-related disability, assessed using the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, fatigue, lumbar mobility, and isometric strength. Data were collected during the healthcare program at four time points: pretreatment (T0), midway through 20-week treatment (T1), end of 20-week treatment (T2), and at completion of 12-month relapse prevention program (T3). Multilevel regression analyses were conducted to examine the effects of the healthcare program on primary outcomes over time. RESULTS: The 20-week treatment period yielded significant improvements in both mental ( B = 0.44, t (943) = 19.42, p < .001) and physical component summary scores ( B = 0.45, t (943) = 18.24, p < .001) of the RAND-36, as well as in QBPDS total score ( B = -0.77, t (943) = -26.16 p < .001). Pretreatment scores indicated the presence of problematic fatigue, kinesiophobia, and clinical levels of pain catastrophizing, all of which resolved by the end of the 12-month relapse prevention program. CONCLUSIONS: An interdisciplinary multimodal integrative healthcare program seems effective for patients with chronic spinal pain and comorbid mental disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".