Question: Comorbidity, i.e., additional psychological distress in patients already suffering from chronic somatic diseases (e.g., orthopedic conditions) is of growing importance. The quality of analyzing and interpreting the often used Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) used with orthopedic patients should improve by employing a new “case definition” of four groups (instead of two) of differentially psychologically distressed patients instead of two groups as before.Methods: Four groups with the different psychological distress definitions of “no,” “mild,” “remarkable,” and “severe” were to be analyzed from a group of 639 orthopedic patients in inpatient rehabilitation clinics. The BSI is transformed into T values (M=50, SD=10). There is “no” distress if no T [two scales] is ≥60 and “mild” distress if T [two scales] and/or T [GSI] is ≥60 and <63. If T [two scales] and/or T [GSI] is ≥63 and <70, it is “remarkable,” and if T [two scales] and/or T [GSI] ≥70, it speaks for “severe” psychological distress.Results: The new tool for analyzing psychological distress based on the T-scores of the BSI resulted in the following four groups: No psychological distress (41.9%): unspecific health-related information stands for a useful intervention. About 13.3% demonstrated low psychological distress: shorter diagnostic interviews and a few more diagnostic examinations led to a low-level outpatient group program to improve health and well-being in a preventive sense; one repeated measurement in 4weeks is advised. Remarkable psychological distress (26%): in-depth exploration using interviews, tests, and questionnaires to choose specific interventions in a single and/or group setting, outpatient or inpatient treatment; repeated measurements and process control. About 18.8% reported severe psychological distress: in-depth exploration led to specific interventions in a single and/or group setting, almost an inpatient setting; immediately crisis intervention and high-frequent process control.Conclusion: The new evaluation strategy of the BSI should improve practice and research; further investigation is necessary.
There is growing evidence for the effectiveness of multimodal intervention concepts for chronic low back pain in the international literature, and accordingly several German rehabilitation programmes for the treatment of chronic low back pain patients have been developed. Focus of this paper is to describe and compare frequently used German multimodal intervention programmes for in- and outpatient rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain. Programmes were chosen by searching the most relevant online resources as well as the online pages of Deutsche Rentenversicherung and Zentrum Patientenschulung during September 2008. Keywords guiding the search were: Patientenschulung, Rückenschmerzen, Manual, psychologische multimodale Interventionskonzepte, Rehabilitationsprogramm, psychology, intervention, low back pain, manual and therapy. By this means, six manually supported multimodal rehabilitation programmes for the in- and outpatient therapy of patients with chronic back pain could be identified: Göttinger Rücken-Intensiv-Programm (GRIP), the psychological programme for chronic head- and low back pain, the Münchner Rücken-Intensiv-Programm (MRIP), Back to Balance, Arbeiten und Leben--Back to Balance (ALEBABA) und Rückenfit: Lebenslust statt Krankheitsfrust. These programmes are depicted and compared with regard to their potentials and limitations in supporting the rehabilitation process of patients with chronic low back pain. While comparing the programmes, a number of similarities between them can be detected, as well as pronounced differences, e. g., regarding settings and complexity. In most programmes, lack of appropriate evaluation studies and lack of aftercare turn out to be critical aspects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.