Biopsychosocial baseline values of 15 000 patients suffering from chronic pain: Dutch DataPain study

Abstract

Background and objectivesChronic pain affects many adults. To improve our daily practice, we need to understand multidisciplinary approaches, integrated treatment plans and the biopsychosocial context of these patients. To date, almost 15 000 chronic pain patients have been referred to the Maastricht University Pain Center in the Netherlands.MethodsThis study describes 11 214 of these patients suffering from chronic pain. Chronic pain was analyzed using relevant Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials instruments.ResultsMost patients were female (59.3%). The prevalence of low education was 59%, and unemployment/disability was 35.9%. The mean age was 55.6 years. Severe pain (Numerical Rating Sale score 7–10) was reported by 71.9% of the patients; psychological and quality of life values deteriorated when pain severity increased. Approximately 36% of patients showed severe signs of depression or anxiety, and 39% displayed high pain catastrophizing. Of all patients, 17.8% reported high values for pain severity, catastrophizing and anxiety or depression.ConclusionsBased on baseline biopsychosocial values, this study shows the complexity of patients referred to pain centers. Pain management with a biopsychosocial approach in an integrated multidisciplinary setting is indispensable. Above all, adjusted education on chronic pain and attention to its biopsychosocial aspects are deemed necessary.

Clinical important improvement of chronic pain patients in randomized controlled trials and the DATAPAIN cohort

“…For more than 20 years, the Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine of the Maastricht University Medical Center+in the Netherlands has routinely collected both the NRS and PGIC of chronic pain patients for both interventional studies and a cohort data. For this study, we used data of the RCT’s of van Eerd, et al, 11 Kallewaard et al, 12 Slangen, et al, 13 and Kemler et al 14 and cohort data of the DATA PAIN cohort, initiated in 2003 by the Comprehensive Multidisciplinary University Pain Center Maastricht 2 …”

“…For this study, we used data of the RCT’s of van Eerd, et al, 11 Kallewaard et al, 12 Slangen, et al, 13 and Kemler et al 14 and cohort data of the DATA PAIN cohort, initiated in 2003 by the Comprehensive Multidisciplinary University Pain Center Maastricht. 2 To perform this secondary analysis, approval was obtained by the medical ethical committee of the Maastricht University (METC approval number: 2020‐2391). All studies included followed the recommendations of the IMMPACT guidelines on core outcomes for an adequate evaluation of the treatment efficacy and effectiveness.…”

“… 1 Literature indicates a higher prevalence and average of pain intensity in women when compared to men. 2 , 3 Also, women seem to report greater functional limitations for the same pain intensity. 4 Yet, it is rather unclear whether differences in meaningfulness of changes in pain are existent between sexes.…”

“…Due to the highly subjective nature of pain, the meaningfulness of changes in pain is often difficult to interpret 1 . Literature indicates a higher prevalence and average of pain intensity in women when compared to men 2,3 . Also, women seem to report greater functional limitations for the same pain intensity 4 .…”

Study on Pain Catastrophizing From 2010 to 2020: A Bibliometric Analysis via CiteSpace

“…One previous study reported that the incidence of chronic pelvic pain catastrophizing was 53.1% (Sewell et al, 2018). Moreover, in a study of 11,214 patients with chronic pain, 39% patients reported severe pain catastrophizing (Brouwer et al, 2020). Evidence has suggested that pain catastrophizing has a consistently strong correlation with pain severity, disability, performance-based physical functioning and mood among people with chronic pain (Flor et al, 1993;Geisser et al, 1994;Thomtén et al, 2016;Salt et al, 2018;Varallo et al, 2021b).…”