Programmes multidisciplinaires et lombalgies chroniques : concepts et aspects pratiques

Gallice, J.; Kupper, Danièle; Rentsch, Denis; Barthassat, V.; Cedraschi, Christine; Genevay, Stéphane

doi:10.1016/s1779-0123(10)74859-2

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of organizational constraints, the program only runs five times per year. A multidisciplinary team (a rheumatologist, a rehabilitation physician, a pain specialist, a psychiatrist, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and a psychologist) followed small groups of four to six patients through the high-intensity, four-week, 100-h outpatient program, as described in detail in earlier publications [17, 18].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovering the capability to work among patients with chronic low Back pain after a four-week, multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program: 18-month follow-up study

Ibrahim

Weber

Courvoisier

et al. 2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Biopsychosocial rehabilitation programs have been advocated for its management, especially since the widespread acceptance of the biopsychosocial model of chronic pain. Despite extensive evidence of its short-term benefits, few studies have reported on its long-term effect and more specifically on indirect outcomes such as return to work and quality of life (QoL). The present study evaluated the long-term effect of a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) program for patients with chronic LBP, for which short- and intermediate-term efficacy had been established, with an emphasis on recovering work capability. Methods This prospective cohort study enrolled 201 patients on a four-week MBR program incorporating physical and occupational therapies and psychological counselling. Assessments occurred at program admission and discharge and at 6 and 18 months. Work capability, Oswestry Disability Index, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were assessed. Multiple mixed models were used to detect changes in each outcome. Logistic regressions were calculated to identify predictors of recovery of work capability. Results Of the 201 patients who fulfilled the eligibility criteria, 160 (79.8%) attended the discharge assessment, 127 (63.2%) attended the 6-month follow-up, and 107 (53.3%) continued to the 18-month follow-up. Initially, 128 patients (71.5%) had been on sick leave. At 6 and 18 months, 72 (56.7%) and 84 (78.5%) participants had recovered their work capability, respectively. There were significant improvements in pain, disability, kinesiophobia, and anxiety and depression scores over time. Patients who recovered work capability showed significantly greater improvements in their total COMI score, general QoL, and disability, which were the best three predictors of recovering work capability. Conclusions This study extends previous results confirming the program’s contribution to recovering work capability among chronic LBP patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovering the capability to work among patients with chronic low Back pain after a four-week, multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program: 18-month follow-up study

Ibrahim

Weber

Courvoisier

et al. 2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was designed by an extensive multidisciplinary team (rheumatologist, rehabilitation physician, pain specialist, psychiatrist, physical therapists, occupational therapists and a psychologist) for groups of four to six patients, and was held over four weeks for a total of 100 hours (table 1). A complete description of the methods used to devise the programme has been published [17,18]. All treatments were delivered in groups, but the type and intensity of the physical treatment were tailored to each patient, based on an initial evaluation of his/her physical capacities, psychosocial impairments, expectations and priorities.…”

Section: Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%