Risk and Protective Factors in Multimodal Pain Therapy in Patients With Chronic Lumbal Pain

May 17, 2022 updated by: Claudia Levenig, Ruhr University of Bochum

Results will show important information about potential protective factors which might be relevant for the recovery of patients suffering from low back pain (theoretical basis). On a clinically applied basis we plan the validation of a short screening in concerns of psychosocial risk and protective factors in patients with chronic low back pain undergoing a multimodal pain therapy (MPT), and this for the first time.

Three main aims are: 1. Prospective validation of a short screening on a theoretical basis for the collection of psychosocial risk factors concerning of an unfavourable therapeutic process in MPT. 2. the verification of differences in subgroups with regard to pain management on a basis of the Avoidance Endurance Model in the development of pain and pain-related disability. 3. The evaluation of potential psychosocial protective factors supporting a positive outcome of MPT, such as resilience, acceptance, self-compassion, and body image.

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common causes of disease-related disabilities with regard to work ability, physical activity, and mobility, as well as in the development of depressive disorders and cognitive impairments. The multimodal pain therapy (MPT) is a multidisciplinary offer of medical, psychlogical and physiotherapeutic treatment. Currently, MPT is the best therapeutic option. However, there are still many non-responders. It is unknown, which patients will benefit from MPT and which contents are the most effective. Besides somatic factors, the relevance of psychosocial risk factors, such as dysfunctional pain management or disstress and depression, are evident in patients suffering from CLBP. Concepts, such as the Avoidance-Endurance Model of pain (AEM) describe different pattern with regard of mood and pain management, offering an individual therapy. Patients with a fear-avoidance response pattern (FAR) and physical inactivity as well as patients with a depressive endurance response pattern (DER) and physical overactiviity show a poorer response to therapeutical and rehabilitative treatments. On the other side, patients with an adaptive response pattern (AR) and moderate physical activity, and patients with an eustress endurance response pattern (EER) react positive to MPT. If the relevance of these pattern will be shown in patients with CLBP, this would stand for a more individualised therapy concerning psychological and physiotherapeutical treatment (e.g., ExposureTherapy, Pacing). Currently it is unknown which factors are relevant for recovery in patients with AR. One possible protective factor is the personality factor "resilience". The current research situation in the field of chronic pain and resilience is still in its early days and raises the question, if partial aspects such as a high degree of pain acceptance, of self-compassion, and a positive body image show more directly and more clearly relations to a positive response to treatment. Furthermore, research has focused on cross-sectional studies. However, only prospective longitudinal studies will provide insight in cause-and-effect-relationship. On a clinically applied basis the diagnosis of risk and protective factors will play an outstanding role to establish a more individualised therapy and rehabilitation, as also the MPT.

For the diagnosis of the different pain pattern postulated by the AEM, the 9-item Avoidance Endurance Fast-Screen (AEFS) is a reliable and valid short screening. However, it has been investigated in patients with acute pain, so far. A separate validation for patients with CLPB is necessary. Our working group wants to tie up the planned prospective study to preliminary work and show for the first time processes of patients with CLBP undergoing MPT.

On a theoretical basis results will be informative about possible protective factors being important for recovery. On a clinically applied basis we plan the validation of a short-screening of psychosocial risk- and protective factors in patients with CLBP undergoing MPT.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Anticipated)

200

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

in-patients pain clinic

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • chronic low back pain

Exclusion Criteria:

  • acute inflammatory diseases
  • acute fractures
  • pregnancy
  • neurological dieases
  • psychiatric diseases

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Patients with chronic low back pain
Patients suffering from chronic low back pain (duration longer than 3 months) undergoing a multimodal pain therapy
Patients with chronic low back pain in in-patient multimodal pain therapy. Three survey times, questionnaires

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Chronic Pain Score (von Korff)
Time Frame: 15 weeks
change of pain intensity from baseline to 3-months-follow up (three time points); minimum value 0 (no pain), maximum value 10 (worst pain possible), higher scores mean a worse outcome
15 weeks
Chronic Disability Score (von Korff)
Time Frame: 15 weeks
change of pain-related disability from baseline to 3-months-follow up (three time points); minimum value 0 (no disability), maximum value 10 (worst disability possible), higher scores mean a worse outcome
15 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Resilience Scale-13 (RS-13)
Time Frame: first day of study participation
resilience - thinking and action; 7-point-scale (1 I do not agree - 7 I totally agree); higher scores indicate higher levels of resilience
first day of study participation
Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ)
Time Frame: first day of study participation
Acceptance of chronic pain (subscales "pain willingness" and "activity engagement"), 7-point-scale (0 never - 6 always true); higher scores indicate higher levels of acceptance
first day of study participation
Self-compassion Scale (SCS)
Time Frame: first day of study participation
Self-compassion - how individuals typically act towards themself in difficult times; subscales: self-kindness, self-judgement, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, over-identification; 5-point-scale (1 almost never - 5 almost always); mean score; higher scores indicate higher levels of self-compassion
first day of study participation
Frankfurter Körperkonzeptskalen (FKKS, Frankfurt Body Concept Scales)
Time Frame: 15 weeks
body image - cognitions of health, self-efficacy and self-acceptance (three subscales); 7 point-scale (1 I strongly agree - 6 I strongly disagree); higher scores indicate a more positive body image
15 weeks
Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire (FreBAQ)
Time Frame: 15 weeks
body image - perception of the back; 5-point-scale (0 never feels like that - 4 Always, or most of the time feels like that); higher scores indicate a poor outcome
15 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Study Chair: Tobias L Schulte, Prof., Katholisches Klinikum Bochum

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Anticipated)

January 1, 2023

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

December 1, 2023

Study Completion (Anticipated)

December 1, 2024

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 30, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 5, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

May 11, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

May 18, 2022

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 17, 2022

Last Verified

May 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • MST2020

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Chronic Low-back Pain

Clinical Trials on Survey

Subscribe