To determine the reliability and concurrent validity of a visual analogue scale (VAS) for disability as a single-item instrument measuring disability in chronic pain patients was the objective of the study. For the reliability study a test-retest design and for the validity study a cross-sectional design was used. A general rehabilitation centre and a university rehabilitation centre was the setting for the study. The study population consisted of patients over 18 years of age, suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain; 52 patients in the reliability study, 344 patients in the validity study. Main outcome measures were as follows. Reliability study: Spearman's correlation coefficients (rho values) of the test and retest data of the VAS for disability; validity study: rho values of the VAS disability scores with the scores on four domains of the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and VAS pain scores, and with Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores in chronic low back pain patients. Results were as follows: in the reliability study rho values varied from 0.60 to 0.77; and in the validity study rho values of VAS disability scores with SF-36 domain scores varied from 0.16 to 0.51, with Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores from 0.38 to 0.43 and with VAS pain scores from 0.76 to 0.84. The conclusion of the study was that the reliability of the VAS for disability is moderate to good. Because of a weak correlation with other disability instruments and a strong correlation with the VAS for pain, however, its validity is questionable.

The aim of this study was to find the cut-off points on the visual analogue scale (VAS) to distinguish among mild, moderate, and severe pain, in relation to the following: pain-related interference with functioning; verbal description of the VAS scores; and latent class analysis for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. A total of 456 patients were included. Pain was assessed using the VAS and verbal rating scale; functioning was assessed using the domains of the Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36). Eight cut-off point schemes were tested using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), ordinal logistic regression, and latent class analysis. The study results showed that VAS scores ⩽ 3.4 corresponded to mild interference with functioning, whereas 3.5 to 6.4 implied moderate interference, and ⩾ 6.5 implied severe interference. VAS scores ⩽ 3.4 were best described for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain as mild pain, 3.5 to 7.4 as moderate pain, and ⩾ 7.5 as severe pain. Latent class analysis found that a 3-class solution fitted best, resulting in the classes 0.1 to 3.8, 3.9 to 5.7, and 5.8 to 10 cm. Findings from our study agree with those of some other studies, although many other studies found different optimal cut-off point schemes. As there appear to be no universally accepted cut-off points, and in view of the low-to-moderate associations between VAS scores and functioning and between VAS and verbal rating scale scores, the correct classification of VAS scores as mild, moderate. or severe in clinical practice seems doubtful.

Objectives: The 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is often used in pain management. The aims of our study were to determine the cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, to measure the variability of the optimal cut-off points, and to determine the influence of patients’ catastrophizing and their sex on these cut-off points.Methods: 2854 patients were included. Pain was assessed by the NRS, functioning by the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and catastrophizing by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Cut-off point schemes were tested using ANOVAs with and without using the PSC scores or sex as co-variates and with the interaction between CP scheme and PCS score and sex, respectively. The variability of the optimal cut-off point schemes was quantified using bootstrapping procedure.Results and conclusion: The study showed that NRS scores ≤ 5 correspond to mild, scores of 6–7 to moderate and scores ≥8 to severe pain in terms of pain-related interference with functioning. Bootstrapping analysis identified this optimal NRS cut-off point scheme in 90% of the bootstrapping samples. The interpretation of the NRS is independent of sex, but seems to depend on catastrophizing. In patients with high catastrophizing tendency, the optimal cut-off point scheme equals that for the total study sample, but in patients with a low catastrophizing tendency, NRS scores ≤ 3 correspond to mild, scores of 4–6 to moderate and scores ≥7 to severe pain in terms of interference with functioning. In these optimal cut-off schemes, NRS scores of 4 and 5 correspond to moderate interference with functioning for patients with low catastrophizing tendency and to mild interference for patients with high catastrophizing tendency. Theoretically one would therefore expect that among the patients with NRS scores 4 and 5 there would be a higher average PDI score for those with low catastrophizing than for those with high catastrophizing. However, we found the opposite. The fact that we did not find the same optimal CP scheme in the subgroups with lower and higher catastrophizing tendency may be due to chance variability.

Study Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. The aim of this study was to study the personal and societal impact of low back pain (LBP) in patients admitted to a multidisciplinary spine center. Summary of Background Data. The socioeconomic burden of LBP is very high. A minority of patients visit secondary or tertiary care because of severe and long-lasting complaints. This subgroup may account for a major part of disability and costs, yet could potentially gain most from treatment. Currently, little is known about the personal and societal burden in patients with chronic complex LBP visiting secondary/tertiary care. Methods. Baseline data were acquired through patient-reported questionnaires and health insurance claims. Primary outcomes were LBP impact (Impact Stratification, range 8–50), functioning (Pain Disability Index, PDI; 0–70), quality of life (EuroQol-5D, EQ5D; −0.33 to 1.00), work ability (Work Ability Score, WAS; 0–10), work participation, productivity costs (Productivity Cost Questionnaire), and healthcare costs 1 year before baseline. Healthcare costs were compared with matched primary and secondary care LBP samples. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied. Results. In total, 1502 patients (age 46.3 ± 12.8 years, 57% female) were included. Impact Stratification was 35.2 ± 7.5 with severe impact (≥35) for 58% of patients. PDI was 38.2 ± 14.1, EQ5D 0.39 (interquartile range, IQR: 0.17–0.72); WAS 4.0 (IQR: 1.0–6.0) and 17% were permanently work-disabled. Mean total health care costs (€4875, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4309–5498) were higher compared to the matched primary care sample (n = 4995) (€2365, 95% CI: 2219–2526, P < 0.001), and similar to the matched secondary care sample (n = 4993) (€4379, 95% CI: 4180–4590). Productivity loss was estimated at €4315 per patient (95% CI: 3898–4688) during 6 months. Conclusion. In patients seeking multidisciplinary spine care, the personal and societal impact of LBP is very high. Specifically, quality of life and work ability are poor and health care costs are twice as high compared to patients seeking primary LBP care. Level of Evidence: 3

Cross sectional study, performed in an outpatient university based pain rehabilitation setting. To analyze the relationship between psychological factors (psychosocial distress, depression, self efficacy, self-esteem, fear of movement, pain cognitions and coping reactions) and performance-based and self-reported disability, as measured with a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). It has been suggested that a strong relationship exists between psychological factors and disability in patients with CLBP. In former research disability was often measured by self-report and seldom performance-based. Study sample consisted of 92 patients with CLBP admitted for multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Prior to treatment, all patients completed questionnaires to measure psychological factors and self-reported disability, and performed an FCE to measure performance-based disability. Correlation coefficients between psychological variables and FCE and self-reported disability were calculated. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed with self-reported or performance based disability measures as outcome variables, and psychological measures as predictor variables. Out of 42 relations analyzed, 5 were statistically significant. This concerned one significant correlation between kinesiophobia and a subtest of FCE, and four correlations between psychological factors and RMDQ. No correlation was significant after the Bonferroni correction was applied (P < 0.001). The strength of significant correlations ranged from r = −0.33 to r = 0.25. The multivariate analysis revealed that psychological variables measured in this study could explain 19% of the variance of self-reported disability, with kinesiophobia being the only psychological variable that contributed significantly. The suggested strong relationship between psychological factors and performance-based and self-reported disability could not be confirmed in this study. This may implicate that the relationship between psychological factors and disability in patients with CLBP is not as unambiguous as suggested.

No strong predictors of treatment outcome were found other than the baseline scores of the respective outcome variables. More disabled patients and patients with more pain benefitted more from the rehabilitation program. Other predictors improved the prediction models slightly. Implications for Rehabilitation It remains challenging to correctly predict the outcome of treatment from patients' baseline sociodemographic and psychological characteristics; predictors other than baseline scores of the outcome variables are only slightly associated with treatment outcome. Patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and poor physical functioning or mental health benefit most from pain rehabilitation. Older patients benefit less from a pain rehabilitation program than younger patients in terms of physical functioning. Pain reduction during a pain rehabilitation program is greatest in patients with high pain intensity who are not at work at the start of the rehabilitation program. Coping style influences the outcome of rehabilitation of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

A detailed description of case complexity of patients with chronic pain referred for pain rehabilitation. Insight in case complexity of patients within subgroups on the basis of gender, pain duration, pain severity and pain location. These descriptions can be used as reference data for daily practice in the field of pain rehabilitation and can be used to evaluate, monitor and improve rehabilitation care in care settings nationwide as well as internationally.

The relation between work status and CLBP is multidimensional, as was illustrated by using the bio-psychosocial model of the ICF. Patients with a low educational level, a low self-reported physical or mental health were more likely to be non-working. Self-reported limitations and physical and mental health are more important in explaining work status than objective measurements of performance.