Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Pain Pract. 2021 Jul;21(6):662-679. doi: 10.1111/papr.13007. Epub 2021 May 4.
The Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) is frequently used in the assessment of chronic pain. Three subgroups have been derived from MPI: adaptive coper (AC), dysfunctional (DYS), and interpersonally distressed (ID). The primary aim of this study was to examine whether outcome of Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation Programs (IMMRPs) differed across the MPI subgroups.
Patients with chronic pain (N = 34,513), included in the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation, were classified into MPI subgroups and a subset that participated in IMMRPs (N = 13,419) was used to examine overall treatment outcomes using a previously established Multivariate Improvement Score (MIS) and 2 retrospective patient-evaluated benefits from treatment.
The subgroups differed on sociodemographic characteristics, pain duration, and spatial spreading of pain. DYS and ID had the best overall outcomes to MIS. AC had the best outcomes according to the 2 retrospective items. Transition into other subgroups following IMMRP was common and most prominent in DYS and least prominent in AC.
The validity of the MPI subgroups was partially confirmed. DYS and ID had the most severe clinical presentations at baseline and showed most improvement following IMMRP, but overall severity in DYS and ID at post-treatment was still higher than in the AC group. Future studies should examine how processes captured by MPI interact with neurobiological, medical, sociodemographic, and adaptation/coping factors and how these interactions impact severity of chronic pain and treatment outcome.
多维疼痛量表(MPI)常用于慢性疼痛的评估。MPI 可分为三个亚组:适应性应对者(AC)、功能障碍者(DYS)和人际困扰者(ID)。本研究的主要目的是检验跨 MPI 亚组的综合多模式疼痛康复计划(IMMRP)的治疗结果是否存在差异。
纳入瑞典疼痛康复质量登记处的慢性疼痛患者(N=34513),根据 MPI 亚组进行分类,并对参与 IMMRP 的亚组(N=13419)进行分析,使用先前建立的多维改善评分(MIS)和 2 项回顾性患者治疗获益来评估总体治疗结果。
亚组间在社会人口统计学特征、疼痛持续时间和疼痛空间扩散方面存在差异。DYS 和 ID 在 MIS 方面总体疗效最佳,AC 在 2 项回顾性治疗获益项目中疗效最佳。IMMRP 后向其他亚组转移较为常见,在 DYS 和 ID 中最为明显,在 AC 中最为少见。
MPI 亚组的有效性得到了部分验证。DYS 和 ID 在基线时具有最严重的临床表现,在 IMMRP 后显示出最大的改善,但在治疗后 DYS 和 ID 的总体严重程度仍高于 AC 组。未来的研究应探讨 MPI 中所捕捉的过程如何与神经生物学、医学、社会人口学和适应/应对因素相互作用,以及这些相互作用如何影响慢性疼痛的严重程度和治疗结果。