A Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Programme for Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Study

Abstract

This rehabilitation programme facilitated regain of physical functioning and the ability to return to work. The pre-programme employment status, duration of absence from work, and patient age were the most important predictors for work resumption.

Pain management programme for Chinese patients: a 10-year outcome review

“…20 The apparent discrepancy between Luk et al's study 20 and our study was due to differences in patient cohort and programme design. In Luk et al's study, 20 the average pain history was 22 months. These parameters compared favourably with our cohort of mean pain history of 46 months.…”

“…20 Those who returned to work showed a reduction in perceived disability, pain intensity, better physical performance, and similar mood compared with those who did not. 20 The apparent discrepancy between Luk et al's study 20 and our study was due to differences in patient cohort and programme design. In Luk et al's study, 20 the average pain history was 22 months.…”

“…In 2010, Luk et al 20 published their rehabilitation programme outcome for patients with chronic low back pain. Following almost 400 hours of physiotherapy and occupational therapy, physical function improved although mood remained unchanged at 6 months.…”

“…Following almost 400 hours of physiotherapy and occupational therapy, physical function improved although mood remained unchanged at 6 months. 20 Approximately 52% of the participants returned to work 6 months after the programme. 20 Those who returned to work showed a reduction in perceived disability, pain intensity, better physical performance, and similar mood compared with those who did not.…”

“…20 Approximately 52% of the participants returned to work 6 months after the programme. 20 Those who returned to work showed a reduction in perceived disability, pain intensity, better physical performance, and similar mood compared with those who did not. 20 The apparent discrepancy between Luk et al's study 20 and our study was due to differences in patient cohort and programme design.…”