Access to Pain Management Programs: A Multifactorial Analysis of the Pathways of Care for Chronic Pain Patients in the University Clinic Erlangen.

Abstract

Different treatment options are offered for patients suffering from chronic pain, which differ in intensity and costs: 1) monodisciplinary treatment, mostly in outpatient care and 2) interdisciplinary treatment with the option of participating in pain management programs as outpatients or inpatients. The present work investigates how patients at the University Clinic Erlangen receiving monodisciplinary treatment differ from those receiving interdisciplinary treatment (research question I) as well as how patients participating in a pain management program differ from those who do not (research question II). The aim is to generate insights into whether the differences between the patient groups under various treatment modalities reflect the officially defined criteria for the indication of chronic pain management programs. Routine data of 1,833 patients treated from January 2008 to March 2013 at the University Clinic Erlangen were analyzed. After univariate preanalyses and checks for multicollinearity, the remaining variables were used for the final multivariate model (multiple binary logistic regression) for research question I and II. Research question I: Patients getting interdisciplinary treatment were more often employed, had higher affective experience of pain, more often regarded their pain as treatable, had more often participated in at least one pain-associated rehabilitation treatment in the past, were younger and rarely had application for retirement in consideration. Research question II: Patients who participated in a pain management program were more often female, more often employed, described their pain as mainly located at the upper part of the body, had more concomitant symptoms, were more often diagnosed with musculoskeletal pain and rarely had a retirement request pending. It could be shown that patients in the analyzed pathways of care mainly differed in demographic variables, and regarding pain management programs, also in the type of pain. Differences between patients in different treatment paths reflecting the officially defined indication criteria for chronic pain management programs were detectable only to a minor extent. Clearer and operational practical guidance should help support the clinical decision to assign patients to different treatment options and close the gap between theory and practice.