Abstract. Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted individuals, communities, and whole populations. Experts across many different fields contributed their time and efforts in different ways to respond to the pandemic. Psychologists working in healthcare provided support and led many initiatives, both regionally and nationally. However, it is unknown how this has differed across Europe and its full range of activities and contributions. Aim: The current study is a survey of European member associations of EFPA, carried out to understand the current contributions and the impact those psychology contributions have had on the COVID-19 pandemic response, to share lessons learned, and to propose a roadmap for the future. Results: Overall, our study highlights how psychological expertise was integrated into many countries’ policy/decision-making, action-planning, caregiving, and the promotion of health and well-being to health professionals and the general public. Even in places where psychologists were not directly integrated into governmental systems, they played an important role in responding to this pandemic by providing their services and empirical knowledge. Discussion: Many psychologists possess the skills and tools to adapt their practice to the digital provision of services and to provide a continuity of care during the pandemic. Research carried out by psychologists has contributed important and new knowledge on pandemic effects, consequences, and interventions; yet, more research financial support is needed. We make recommendations for augmenting psychologists’ contributions in the future. In a global health crisis, where the main possible treatment is a preventive approach concentrated on sustainable behavior change, psychologists should be included every step of the way – they can make a difference.

Background and aimsA bio-psycho-social approach has been recommended in multidisciplinary pain clinics, and in Norway patients with severe chronic nonmalignant pain (CNMP, defined as pain that has persisted for more than 3 months) might be treated at a regional multidisciplinary pain center. The specific aims of this study were (1) to describe characteristics of a sample of outpatients referred and accepted for treatment/management to three regional multidisciplinary pain centers in Norway, (2) to examine patient differences between the centers and (3) to study associations between symptom scores (insomnia, fatigue, depression, anxiety) and patient characteristics.MethodsPatients, aged 17 years or older with CNMP admitted to and given a date for first consultation at one of three tertiary, multidisciplinary pain centers: St. Olavs Hospital Trondheim University Hospital (STO), Haukeland University Hospital (HUS) and University Hospital of North Norway (UNN), were included in the study. Data on demographics, physical activity, characteristics of pain, previous traumatic events, social network, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and SF-36v2® were retrieved from the local quality registry at each pain center.ResultsData from 1563 patients [mean age 42 (SD 15) years and 63% females] were available for analyses. Average years with pain were 9.3 (SD 9.1). Primary education as highest level of education was reported by 20%, being actively working/student/military by 32%, and no physical activity by 31%. Further, 48% reported widespread pain, 61% reported being exposed to serious life event(s), and 77% reported having a close friend to talk to. Non-worker status, no physical activity, lack of social network, reports of being exposed to serious life event(s) and widespread pain were all characteristics repeatedly associated with clinically high symptom scores. No significant differences between the centers were found in the proportions of patients reporting fatigue nor mean levels of insomnia symptoms. However, the proportion of patients reporting symptoms of anxiety and depression was a little lower at UNN compared with STO and HUS.ConclusionsAnalyses of registry data from three tertiary multidisciplinary pain centers in Norway support previous findings from other registry studies regarding patient characterized: A large proportion being women, many years of pain, low employment rate, low physical activity rate, and a large proportion reporting previous traumatic event(s). Characteristics such as non-work participation, no physical activity, lack of social network, have been exposed to serious life event(s), and chronic widespread pain were all associated with high clinical score levels of insomnia, fatigue, and mental distress. Health related quality of life was low compared to what has been reported for a general population and a range of other patient groups.ImplicationsThe findings of this study indicate that physical activity and work participation might be two important factors to address in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic non-malignant pain. Future studies should also explore whether pre consultation self-reported data might give direction to rehabilitation modalities.

To investigate the outcome of patients with long-term refractory temporomandibular disorders (TMD) three years after a Norwegian interdisciplinary evaluation program with attention to patient satisfaction, function, pain, and psychosocial variables. Patients and Methods:The study population consisted of 60 long-term refractory TMD patients who were investigated by a Norwegian interdisciplinary team. A questionnaire that covered medical history, function, pain, lifestyle factors, TMD-status and follow-up from their general medical practitioner (GMP) was sent to the patients three years after the evaluation. Questionnaires that assessed function (Mandibular Functional Index Questionnaire [MFIQ] and Roland Morrison Scale [RMS]), pain intensity (General Pain Intensity questionnaire [GPI]) and psychosocial factors (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale [HADS]); a 2-item version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire [CSQ]) were included in the package.Results: Thirty-nine out of 60 TMD patients completed the questionnaires. Improvements in TMD symptoms were reported in 10 patients (26%), were unchanged in 16 patients (41%) and worsened in 13 patients (33%). Only 8 patients (21%) were satisfied with the follow-up of the suggested treatments from their GMP. Significant improvements of symptoms were noted in MFIQ (jaw function), GPI (including pain intensity at maximum and suffering from pain), and CSQ (pain related catastrophizing), in all 39 TMD patients as one group. However, a subgroup analysis showed that the significant improvements were mostly within patients who reported improvement of TMD symptoms. A high pain intensity at baseline was a significant risk factor (OR = 5.79, 95% CI: 1.34, 24.96) for patients who reported worsening of TMD symptoms at follow-up. Conclusion: High pain intensity at baseline was a significant risk factor for poorer recovery three years after an interdisciplinary evaluation. Our data support the notion that improved coping with TMD pain includes both decreased pain intensity, CSQ and MFIQ scores.

First authorship is shared between Trond Berge and Annika RosènNorway is in the process of establishing a national program for patients with refractory orofacial pain (TMD). The program comprises a systematic multidisciplinary evaluation with a two year follow-up, together with national evidence-based guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of TMD. This paper describes the establishment of the evaluation program and current results.

No abstract