Objective: Chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults is a global health and economic problem. The aim of this paper was to systematically review and determine what proportion of multidisciplinary approaches to managing chronic musculoskeletal pain are cost-effective. Materials and Methods: The EconLit, Embase, and PubMed electronic databases were searched for randomized and nonrandomized economic evaluation studies of nonpharmaceutical multidisciplinary chronic pain management interventions published from inception through to August 2019. Results: Seven studies comprising 2095 patients were included. All studies involved diverse multidisciplinary teams in one or more of the study arms. All studies involved chronic (both chronic and subacute) low back pain and were economic evaluations from either a societal or health care perspective. Two of the 3 studies that reported on a multidisciplinary pain intervention compared with nonmultidisciplinary intervention concluded favorable cost-effectiveness based on cost per quality adjusted life years gained, 1 study was not found to be cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness of the multidisciplinary intervention of interest was also not established by another 3-arm study. Two studies compared 2 multidisciplinary interventions; neither of these could definitively declare cost-effectiveness. The remaining study indicated the intervention by a multidisciplinary team was more effective but at a higher cost. None of the included studies used decision models to estimate long-term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary programs. Discussion: There are few studies on the cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary chronic pain management interventions. This study encourages additional rigorous economic evaluations of multidisciplinary models for chronic pain management. Economic evaluations that enable extrapolating costs and effects of multidisciplinary programs beyond the time horizon of clinical trials may be more informative for clinicians and health administrators.

Active Day Patient Treatment (ADAPT) is a well-established 3 week intensive cognitive-behavioural, interdisciplinary pain management program for patients with disabling chronic pain. The aim of this analysis was to conduct an economic analysis of patient-related effects of ADAPT using hospital administrative data, specifically, to compare the costs and health outcomes for patients 1 month after participating in the program, with the preprogram period when they were receiving standard care. This retrospective cohort study included 230 patients who completed ADAPT (including follow-ups) between 2014 and 17 at the Pain Management and Research Centre at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, Australia. Data on pain-related healthcare utilization and costs before and after the program were assessed. Primary outcome measures were labour force participation for patients' average weekly earnings and cost per clinically meaningful change in Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Severity, and BPI interference scores (n = 224). We estimated patients, on average, earned $59 more each week at 1 month follow-up compared with baseline. The cost per clinically meaningful change in pain severity and interference score based on the BPI severity and BPI interference were AU$9452.32 (95% CI: $7031.76-$12,930.40) and AU$3446.62 (95% CI: $2851.67-$4126.46), respectively. The cost per point improvement and per clinically meaningful change in the Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire were $483 (95% CI: $411.289-$568.606) and $3381.02, respectively. Our analysis showed a better health outcome, reduced healthcare services' cost, and reduced number of medications taken 1 month after participating in ADAPT.