+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A 9-year follow-up of a self-management group intervention for persistent neck pain in primary health care: a randomized controlled trial

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background and objective

          In previous short-term and 2-year follow-ups, a pain and stress self-management group intervention (PASS) had better effect on pain-related disability, self-efficacy, catastrophizing, and perceived pain control than individually administered physiotherapy (IAPT) for patients with persistent tension-type neck pain. Studies that have evaluated long-term effects of self-management approaches toward persistent neck pain are sparse. The objective of this study was to compare pain-related disability, self-efficacy for activities of daily living (ADL), catastrophizing, pain, pain control, use of analgesics, and health care utilization in people with persistent tension-type neck pain 9 years after they received the PASS or IAPT.

          Materials and methods

          Of 156 people (PASS, n = 77; IAPT, n = 79) originally included in a randomized controlled trial, 129 people (PASS, n = 63; IAPT, n = 66) were eligible and were approached for the 9-year follow-up. They were sent a self-assessment questionnaire, comprising the Neck Disability Index, the Self-Efficacy Scale, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, and questions regarding pain, analgesics, and health care utilization. Mixed linear models for repeated measures analysis or generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the differences between groups and within groups over time (baseline, previous follow-ups, and 9-year follow-up) and the interaction effect of “time by group”.


          Ninety-four participants (73%) responded (PASS, n = 48; IAPT, n = 46). At 9 years, PASS participants reported less pain-related disability, pain at worst, and analgesics usage, and a trend toward better self-efficacy compared to IAPT participants. There was a difference between groups in terms of change over time for disability, self-efficacy for ADL, catastrophizing, perceived pain control, and health care visits in favor of PASS. Analyses of simple main effects at 9 years showed that the PASS group had less disability ( p = 0.006) and a trend toward better self-efficacy ( p = 0.059) than the IAPT group.


          The favorable effects on pain-related disability of PASS were sustained 9 years after the intervention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms.

          Self-management has become a popular term for behavioral interventions as well as for healthful behaviors. This is especially true for the management of chronic conditions. This article offers a short history of self-management. It presents three self-management tasks--medical management, role management, and emotional management--and six self-management skills--problem solving, decision making, resource utilization, the formation of a patient-provider partnership, action planning, and self-tailoring. In addition, the article presents evidence of the effectiveness of self-management interventions and posits a possible mechanism, self-efficacy, through which these interventions work. In conclusion the article discusses problems and solutions for integrating self-management education into the mainstream health care systems.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders.

            Best evidence synthesis. To undertake a best evidence synthesis of the published evidence on the burden and determinants of neck pain and its associated disorders in the general population. The evidence on burden and determinants of neck has not previously been summarized. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders performed a systematic search and critical review of literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. We identified 469 studies on burden and determinants of neck pain, and judged 249 to be scientifically admissible; 101 articles related to the burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population. Incidence ranged from 0.055 per 1000 person years (disc herniation with radiculopathy) to 213 per 1000 persons (self-reported neck pain). Incidence of neck injuries during competitive sports ranged from 0.02 to 21 per 1000 exposures. The 12-month prevalence of pain typically ranged between 30% and 50%; the 12-month prevalence of activity-limiting pain was 1.7% to 11.5%. Neck pain was more prevalent among women and prevalence peaked in middle age. Risk factors for neck pain included genetics, poor psychological health, and exposure to tobacco. Disc degeneration was not identified as a risk factor. The use of sporting gear (helmets, face shields) to prevent other types of injury was not associated with increased neck injuries in bicycling, hockey, or skiing. Neck pain is common. Nonmodifiable risk factors for neck pain included age, gender, and genetics. Modifiable factors included smoking, exposure to tobacco, and psychological health. Disc degeneration was not identified as a risk factor. Future research should concentrate on longitudinal designs exploring preventive strategies and modifiable risk factors for neck pain.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Fifteen Years of Explaining Pain: The Past, Present, and Future.

              The pain field has been advocating for some time for the importance of teaching people how to live well with pain. Perhaps some, and maybe even for many, we might again consider the possibility that we can help people live well without pain. Explaining Pain (EP) refers to a range of educational interventions that aim to change one's understanding of the biological processes that are thought to underpin pain as a mechanism to reduce pain itself. It draws on educational psychology, in particular conceptual change strategies, to help patients understand current thought in pain biology. The core objective of the EP approach to treatment is to shift one's conceptualization of pain from that of a marker of tissue damage or disease to that of a marker of the perceived need to protect body tissue. Here, we describe the historical context and beginnings of EP, suggesting that it is a pragmatic application of the biopsychosocial model of pain, but differentiating it from cognitive behavioral therapy and educational components of early multidisciplinary pain management programs. We attempt to address common misconceptions of EP that have emerged over the last 15 years, highlighting that EP is not behavioral or cognitive advice, nor does it deny the potential contribution of peripheral nociceptive signals to pain. We contend that EP is grounded in strong theoretical frameworks, that its targeted effects are biologically plausible, and that available behavioral evidence is supportive. We update available meta-analyses with results of a systematic review of recent contributions to the field and propose future directions by which we might enhance the effects of EP as part of multimodal pain rehabilitation. Perspective: EP is a range of educational interventions. EP is grounded in conceptual change and instructional design theory. It increases knowledge of pain-related biology, decreases catastrophizing, and imparts short-term reductions in pain and disability. It presents the biological information that justifies a biopsychosocial approach to rehabilitation.

                Author and article information

                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                30 December 2016
                : 10
                : 53-64
                [1 ]Center for Clinical Research Dalarna, Department of Public Health and Caring Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala
                [2 ]School of Education, Health and Social Studies, Dalarna University, Falun
                [3 ]Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Karolinska Institutet
                [4 ]Department of Neurology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Catharina Gustavsson, Center for Clinical Research Dalarna, Nissers vag 3, S-79182 Falun, Sweden, Tel +46 73 081 8201, Fax +46 23 183 75, Email catharina.gustavsson@ 123456ltdalarna.se
                © 2017 Gustavsson and von Koch. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Original Research


                Comment on this article