BackgroundChronic pain patients frequently suffer from psychological symptoms. There is no consensus concerning the prevalence of severe anxiety and depressive symptoms and the strength of the associations between pain intensity and psychological distress. Although an important aspect of the clinical picture is understanding how the pain condition impacts life, little is known about the relative importance of pain and psychological symptoms for individual’s life impact. The aims of this study were to identify subgroups of pain patients; to analyze if pain, psychological distress, and life impact variables influence subgrouping; and to investigate how patients in the subgroups benefit from treatments.MethodsBackground variables, pain aspects (intensity/severity and spreading), psychological distress (depressive and anxiety symptoms), and two life impact variables (pain interference and perceived life control) were obtained from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation for chronic pain patients and analyzed mainly using advanced multivariate methods.ResultsBased on >35,000 patients, 35%–40% had severe anxiety or depressive symptoms. Severe psychological distress was associated with being born outside Europe (21%–24% vs 6%–8% in the category without psychological distress) and low education level (20.7%–20.8% vs 26%–27% in the category without psychological distress). Dose relationships existed between the two psychological distress variables and pain aspects, but the explained variances were generally low. Pain intensity/severity and the two psychological distress variables were significantly associated (R2=0.40–0.48; P>0.001) with the two life impact variables (pain interference and life control). Two subgroups of patients were identified at baseline (subgroup 1: n=15,901–16,119; subgroup 2: n=20,690–20,981) and the subgroup with the worst situation regarding all variables participated less in an MMRP (51% vs 58%, P<0.001) but showed the largest improvements in outcomes.ConclusionThe results emphasize the need to assess both pain and psychological distress and not take for granted that pain involves high psychological stress in the individual case. Not all patients benefit from MMRP. A better matching between common clinical pictures and the content of MMRPs may help improve results. We only partly found support for treatment resistance in patients with psychological distress burden.

No abstract

Background Throughout the world many people have both obesity and chronic pain, comorbidities that decrease Health‐Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). It is uncertain whether patients with comorbid obesity can maintain improved HRQoL after Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation (IMMPR). Methods Data from 2016, 2017, and 2018 were obtained from a national pain database for Swedish specialized pain clinics and collected at three time points: Pre‐IMMPR; Post‐ IMMPR; and 12‐month follow‐up (FU‐IMMPR). Participants (N = 872) reported body weight, height, pain aspects, and HRQoL (RAND 36‐Item Health Survey). Severe obesity (Body Mass Index, BMI ≥35 kg/m2) was defined according to WHO classifications. We used linear mixed regression models to examine BMI group differences in HRQoL over time. Results More than 25% of patients (224/872) were obese and nearly 30% (63/224) of these were severely obese. All BMI groups improved significantly in both physical and mental composites of HRQoL after IMMPR (Pre‐ vs. Post‐IMMPR, p < .001). The improvements were maintained at a 12‐month follow‐up (Post‐ vs. FU‐IMMPR, p > .05). The severe obesity group had the lowest physical health score and least improvement (pre‐ vs. FU‐IMMPR, Cohen's d = o.422, small effect size). Severe obesity had negative impact on physical health (β = −4.39, p < .05) after controlling for sociodemographic factors and pain aspects. Conclusion Improvements in HRQoL after IMMPR were achieved and maintained across all weights, including patients with comorbid obesity. Only severe obesity was negatively associated with physical health aspects of HRQoL. Significance Patients with chronic pain and comorbid obesity achieve sustained Health‐Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) improvements from Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation (IMMPR). This finding suggests that rehabilitation professionals should consider using IMMPR for patients with comorbid obesity even though their improvement may not reach the same level as for non‐obese patients.

Background: The healthcare for older adults is insufficient in many countries, not designed to meet their needs and is often described as disorganized and reactive. Prediction of older persons at risk of admission to hospital may be one important way for the future healthcare system to act proactively when meeting increasing needs for care. Therefore, we wanted to develop and test a clinically useful model for predicting hospital admissions of older persons based on routine healthcare data. Methods: We used the healthcare data on 40,728 persons, 75-109 years of age to predict hospital inward care in a prospective cohort. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify significant factors predictive of unplanned hospital admission. Model fitting was accomplished using forward selection. The accuracy of the prediction model was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, AUC. Results: The prediction model consisting of 38 variables exhibited a good discriminative accuracy for unplanned hospital admissions over the following 12 months (AUC 0.69 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.68-0.70]) and was validated on external datasets. Clinically relevant proportions of predicted cases of 40 or 45% resulted in sensitivities of 62 and 66%, respectively. The corresponding positive predicted values (PPV) was 31 and 29%, respectively. Conclusion: A prediction model based on routine administrative healthcare data from older persons can be used to find patients at risk of admission to hospital. Identifying the risk population can enable proactive intervention for older patients with as-yet unknown needs for healthcare.

IntroductionThe provision of healthcare services is not dedicated to promoting maintenance of function and does not target frail older persons at high risk of the main causes of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of a proactive medical and social intervention in comparison with conventional care on a group of persons aged 75 and older selected by statistical prediction.Methods and analysisIn a pragmatic multicentre primary care setting (n=1600), a prediction model to find elderly (75+) persons at high risk of complex medical care or hospitalisation is used, followed by proactive medical and social care, in comparison with usual care. The study started in April 2017 with a run-in period until December 2017, followed by a 2-year continued intervention phase that will continue until the end of December 2019. The intervention includes several tools (multiprofessional team for rehabilitation, social support, medical care home visits and telephone support). Primary outcome measures are healthcare cost, number of hospital care episodes, hospital care days and mortality. Secondary outcome measures are number of outpatient visits, cost of social care and informal care, number of prescribed drugs, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, sense of security, functional status and ability. We also study the care of elderly persons in a broader sense, by covering the perspectives of the patients, the professional staff and the management, and on a political level, by using semistructured interviews, qualitative methods and a questionnaire.Ethics and disseminationApproved by the regional ethical review board in Linköping (Dnr 2016/347-31). The results will be presented in scientific journals and scientific meetings during 2019–2022 and are planned to be used for the development of future care models.Trial registration number NCT03180606.