Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation Programs Research Articles

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation with a focus on physiotherapy in patients with Post Covid19 condition: an observational pilot study.

There is a lack of interventions that treat the Post-Covid-19 Condition (PCC) itself. Accordingly, treatment guidelines recommend physiotherapy interventions to alleviate symptoms and enhance functioning. In cases where unimodal treatments prove ineffective, non-organ-specific multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation (MBR) programs are a suitable option. In a pilot observational study with assessments at the entry and end of treatment we aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a 3-week day clinic MBR program and explore its effects on physical functioning in PCC patients with fatigue and reduced physical capacity. Patient selection was based on an interdisciplinary assessment involving a physician, a psychologist and a physiotherapist. Feasibility was determined based on full participation (≥ 8 of 9days) and maintenance of stable endurance in the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). From 37 patients included in the study, 33 completed the MBR (mean age: 43 ± 12years, 73% female). Four patients discontinued the MBR, with two of them having reported deterioration of PCC symptoms. The 6MWT showed a numerical improvement from 501 ± 97m to 512 ± 87m, although it did not reach statistical significance. These results support the feasibility of outpatient MBR with a focus on active physiotherapy interventions in PCC patients with fatigue. This study aligns with previous research supporting the effectiveness of physiotherapy and rehabilitation in PCC patients. However, further research is needed to address possible different treatment responses and varying treatment approaches in subgroups of PCC patients.

Chronic low back pain: a prospective study with 4 to 15 years follow-up after a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program

BackgroundMultidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) is superior to less intensive treatments for at least one year, but the long-term course of the disease is largely unknown. The primary aim of this study was to describe the long-term course of an MBR in relation to pain, disability, and quality of life from the beginning of an MBR to between 4 to 15 years after participation. The secondary aim was to explore the long-term course of an MBR in relation to physiological outcomes of functioning.MethodsThis was a observational study conducted at a university hospital. The cohort consisted of participants of a 3-week, CLBP-specific MBR program between August 2001 and January 2013. The North American Spine Society questionnaire (NASS) pain and disability scale was the primary patient -reported outcome measure (PROM). The NASS neurogenic symptoms scale and the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) health survey were secondary PROMs. Patients were assessed before entry to the MBR (T0), at entry (T1), at discharge (T2) and 4 to 15 years after discharge (T3). Effects were quantified by effect size (ES). Score differences were tested for significance using parametric or non-parametric tests and linear mixed models.ResultsOf 299 consecutive patients from the MBR program, 229 could be contacted. Of these, 84 declined participation, five did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 26 had incomplete data. Thus, 114 patients were included. The mean follow-up time was 9.2 years. At T3, patients exhibited beneficial effects for NASS pain and disability with a moderate ES (ES = 0.63; p < 0.001). The NASS neurogenic symptoms scale was stable. The SF-36 scales showed an improvement in the bodily pain domain (ES = 1.02; p < 0.001), but no significant changes for physical functioning, physical role, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role, or mental health. The physical health component summary was improved (ES = 0.40, p = 0.002), and the mental health summary was unchanged. The linear mixed model analysis confirmed improvements in pain and disability between T1 and T3 (p = 0.010).ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that there is a long-term benefit of MBR participation in patients with CLBP.

Recovering the capability to work among patients with chronic low Back pain after a four-week, multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program: 18-month follow-up study

BackgroundChronic low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Biopsychosocial rehabilitation programs have been advocated for its management, especially since the widespread acceptance of the biopsychosocial model of chronic pain. Despite extensive evidence of its short-term benefits, few studies have reported on its long-term effect and more specifically on indirect outcomes such as return to work and quality of life (QoL). The present study evaluated the long-term effect of a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) program for patients with chronic LBP, for which short- and intermediate-term efficacy had been established, with an emphasis on recovering work capability.MethodsThis prospective cohort study enrolled 201 patients on a four-week MBR program incorporating physical and occupational therapies and psychological counselling. Assessments occurred at program admission and discharge and at 6 and 18 months. Work capability, Oswestry Disability Index, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were assessed. Multiple mixed models were used to detect changes in each outcome. Logistic regressions were calculated to identify predictors of recovery of work capability.ResultsOf the 201 patients who fulfilled the eligibility criteria, 160 (79.8%) attended the discharge assessment, 127 (63.2%) attended the 6-month follow-up, and 107 (53.3%) continued to the 18-month follow-up. Initially, 128 patients (71.5%) had been on sick leave. At 6 and 18 months, 72 (56.7%) and 84 (78.5%) participants had recovered their work capability, respectively. There were significant improvements in pain, disability, kinesiophobia, and anxiety and depression scores over time. Patients who recovered work capability showed significantly greater improvements in their total COMI score, general QoL, and disability, which were the best three predictors of recovering work capability.ConclusionsThis study extends previous results confirming the program’s contribution to recovering work capability among chronic LBP patients.

Biopsychosocial multidisciplinary rehabilitation in low back pain: A comparison of effects after 12 months in patients older and younger than 65 years

In patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) guidelines recommend multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) if other treatments were unsuccessful. However, little is known about the long-term effects of MBR in patients older than 65 years. The objective of this study was to compare the 12 months course of effects of MBR in patients older than 65 years to younger patients. In this naturalistic prospective observational cohort study, 118 participants of a 3-week MBR were included. The MBR comprised exercise therapy, hydrotherapy, occupational therapy, psychological interventions, patient education and instructions to home exercise programs. Outcome was assessed by the condition specific North American Spine Society (NASS) questionnaire pain/function scale and the generic Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). From the eight SF-36 scales only Physical Functioning (PF), Bodily Pain (BP) and Mental Health (MH) were included in the analyses. Data were collected at the beginning of treatment, after 3 months and after 12 months. Participants were grouped into “Old” or “Young” with the cut-off 65 years. Statistical differences between follow-up and baseline scores were tested by paired t-tests. Standardized Effect Size (ES) was calculated by dividing the difference between entry and follow-up by the standard deviation (SD) of the baseline score. In this study, 59 patients were older than 65 years and 59 were younger. The mean ages of the groups old/young were 70 years and 57years respectively. In the group old 64% of patients were female and in the young group 73% were female. The course of the outcomes and the statistical significance of changes are presented in Table 1 , Table 2 . This study shows that a MBR program in cLBP patients has similar beneficial long-term effects on pain and condition specific function in patients older than 65 years compared to younger patients.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain.

Low back pain (LBP) is associated with enormous personal and societal burdens, especially when it reaches the chronic stage of the disorder (pain for a duration of more than three months). Indeed, individuals who reach the chronic stage tend to show a more persistent course, and they account for the majority of social and economic costs. As a result, there is increasing emphasis on the importance of intervening at the early stages of LBP.According to the biopsychosocial model, LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological, and social influences. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.This review is an update of a Cochrane Review on MBR for subacute LBP, which was published in 2003. It is part of a series of reviews on MBR for musculoskeletal pain published by the Cochrane Back and Neck Group and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. To examine the effectiveness of MBR for subacute LBP (pain for a duration of six to 12 weeks) among adults, with a focus on pain, back-specific disability, and work status. We searched for relevant trials in any language by a computer-aided search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and two trials registers. Our search is current to 13 July 2016. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with subacute LBP. We included studies that investigated a MBR program compared to any type of control intervention. We defined MBR as an intervention that included a physical component (e.g. pharmacological, physical therapy) in combination with either a psychological, social, or occupational component (or any combination of these). We also required involvement of healthcare professionals from at least two different clinical backgrounds with appropriate training to deliver the component for which they were responsible. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In particular, the data extraction and 'risk of bias' assessment were conducted by two people, independently. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias and the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome. We included a total of nine RCTs (981 participants) in this review. Five studies were conducted in Europe and four in North America. Sample sizes ranged from 33 to 351. The mean age across trials ranged between 32.0 and 43.7 years.All included studies were judged as having high risk of performance bias and high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding, and four of the nine studies suffered from at least one additional source of possible bias.In MBR compared to usual care for subacute LBP, individuals receiving MBR had less pain (four studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.21, moderate-quality of evidence due to risk of bias) and less disability (three studies with 240 participants; SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.01, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and inconsistency), as well as increased likelihood of return-to-work (three studies with 170 participants; OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.46 to 6.98, very low-quality of evidence due to serious risk of bias and imprecision) and fewer sick leave days (two studies with 210 participants; SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.66 to -0.10, low-quality of evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision) at 12-month follow-up. The effect sizes for pain and disability were low in terms of clinical meaningfulness, whereas effects for work-related outcomes were in the moderate range.However, when comparing MBR to other treatments (i.e. brief intervention with features from a light mobilization program and a graded activity program, functional restoration, brief clinical intervention including education and advice on exercise, and psychological counselling), we found no differences between the groups in terms of pain (two studies with 336 participants; SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.07, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), functional disability (two studies with 345 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.18, low-quality evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias), and time away from work (two studies with 158 participants; SMD -0.25 95% CI -0.98 to 0.47, very low-quality evidence due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias). Return-to-work was not reported in any of the studies.Although we looked for adverse events in both comparisons, none of the included studies reported this outcome. On average, people with subacute LBP who receive MBR will do better than if they receive usual care, but it is not clear whether they do better than people who receive some other type of treatment. However, the available research provides mainly low to very low-quality evidence, thus additional high-quality trials are needed before we can describe the value of MBP for clinical practice.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain.

Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds. To review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review. All studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds. Two review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity. From 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions.Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity. Patients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.

Developing the Social Security Organisation (SOCSO) of Malaysia's RTW case management system

The Social Security Organisation (SOCSO) of Malaysia introduced the Return to Work (RTW) Program in 2007 which is a comprehensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program for its Insured Persons who are experiencing disability due to accidents in the workplace or those claiming for invalidity. This rehabilitation program is unique as it involves the concept of “disability management” in which each Insured Person who is referred to the program, is assigned to a Disability Case Manager who is actively involved throughout the return to work process. Up to date (December 2013), 11,090 workers were motivated to participate in the SOCSO RTW Programme, and this requires many work processes, countless paper-work and massive physical files and document management. Due to this massive information flow, the demand for a more efficient information system is needed. From the beginning, the whole idea was to create an accessible, quick and user-friendly application. The application is now used by the SOCSO RTW Department in managing their information. This application was built on an open source platform which can be access through the internet. It is also a “learning application” where it uses its historical data to assist the case managers to generate standard rehabilitation plans and forecast possible return to work outcomes. The beauty of such application is that it is easily replicated, configurable (email notifications, reminders, etc) to meet the needs of the case managers in various jurisdiction. The scope of the application can also be easily defined to meet the size of an enterprise using the application. With better management of information, this application has contributed in reducing processing time, repetitive paperwork, minimal storage areas and almost real-time flow of information in the SOCSO's RTW Case Management system. Apart from that, the application now stores a wealth of information such as rehabilitation strategies for various disability or illnesses or demographic backgrounds.

The Return to Work Programme in Malaysia - investing in people

The impression that work can be good for a worker's health is a powerful one especially when it is combined with the idea that returning people to work may also have positive benefits for employers and government, physical and vocational rehabilitation and reintegration assumes even greater significance. The Social Security Organization of Malaysia (SOCSO) is a statutory body governing the Employment Accident Insurance Scheme and the Invalidity Pension Scheme. SOCSO covers over 6 million workers and processes over 70,000 new claims annually. SOCSO introduced the RTW Program in 2007 which is a comprehensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program for its Insured Persons who are experiencing disability due to accidents in the workplace or those claiming for invalidity. This rehabilitation program is unique as it involves the concept of “disability management” in which each Insured Person who is referred to the program, is assigned to a Disability Case Manager who is actively involved throughout the return to work process. This presentation discusses the justification of introducing the RTW programme in Malaysia, with reference to the underlying rationale, association between work and rehabilitation, evidence to establish a positive relationship between health and work, and the benefits of RTW for employees, employers and SOCSO. Up to date (December 2013), 11,090 workers were motivated to participate in the SOCSO RTW Programme and 7,881 (71%) have returned to gainful employment. This clearly shows the success of the RTW Programme in not only returning a disabled worker to work but to give them their lives back. Due to this success, SOCSO has started to build its National Rehabilitation Centre for the purpose of RTW which will be ready in mid-2014. However, there is still room for improvements which establish the way forward for SOCSO in creating a more disability-management-centric system.

Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

A stratified randomized single-blinded clinical trial. To compare the efficacies of 2 active therapies for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Both a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program and an intensive individual therapist-assisted back muscle strengthening exercise program used in Denmark have been reported to be effective for the treatment of CLBP. A total of 286 patients with CLBP were randomized to either a group-based 12-week program comprising 73 hours of therapist exposure (approximately 12 h/patient): 35 hours of hard physical exercise, 22 hours of light exercise/occupational therapy, and 16 hours of education (group A) or a 12-week program comprising 1 hour of personal training twice a week, i.e., therapist exposure 24 h/patient (group B). At baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, patients filled out questionnaires on pain (visual analogue scale [VAS]-pain average, which was the primary outcome measure), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, global perceived outcome, and 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey. Data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle. Of the 286 patients, 14 patients did not start treatment. Of the remaining patients, 25 (9%) dropped out of therapy. The 2 groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristic. After treatment, significant improvements were observed with regard to pain, disability, and most of the quality of life dimensions. These effects were sustained over the 24-month follow-up period. There were some statistically significant differences between the 2 groups relating to secondary end points, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and in the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey the "physical functioning" dimension and the "physical component summary." Both groups showed long-term improvements in pain and disability scores, with only minor statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. The minor outcome difference in favor of the group-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation program is hardly of clinical interest for individual patients.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain among working age adults.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation programs are widely applied for chronic low back pain patients. The biopsychosocial approach for low back pain could also be considered to prevent chronicity by carrying out the rehabilitation if the acute pain is prolonged. Nevertheless multidisciplinary treatment programmes are often laborious and long processes and require good collaboration between the patient, the rehabilitation team and the work place. By workplace visits and close relationship with occupational health care one might expect results in terms of patients working ability. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain among working age adults. The reviewed studies for this structured Cochrane review were identified from electronic bibliographic databases, the Science Citation Index, reference checking and consulting experts in the rehabilitation field. The original search was planned and performed for more broad area of musculoskeletal disorders. Trials on subacute low back pain were separated afterwards. From all references found in our original search we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Trials had to assess the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for working age patients suffering from subacute low back pain (more than 4 weeks but less than 3 months). The rehabilitation program was required to be multidisciplinary, i.e.; it had to consist of a physician's consultation plus either a psychological, social or vocational intervention, or a combination of these. Four blinded reviewers selected the randomized controlled trials and controlled trials that met the specified inclusion criteria. Two experts in the field of rehabilitation evaluated the clinical relevance and applicability of the findings of the selected studies to actual clinical use. Two other blinded reviewers extracted the data and assessed the main results and the methodological quality of the studies using standardized forms. Finally, a qualitative analysis was performed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. After screening 1808 abstracts, and the references of 65 reviews, we found only 2 relevant studies that satisfied our criteria on subacute low back pain. They were both considered to be methodologically low quality randomized controlled trials. The clinical relevance of included studies was sufficient. The level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation was moderate on subacute low back pain showing that multidisciplinary rehabilitation which includes workplace visit or more comprehensive occupational health care intervention helps patients to return to work faster, makes sick leaves less and alleviates subjective disability. We conclude that there is moderate evidence of positive effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain and workplace visit increases the effectiveness. But because this evidence is based on the trials that had some methodological shortcomings and several expensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes are commonly used for common subacute low back problems, there is an obvious need for high quality trials in this field.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain among working age adults.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation programs for neck and shoulder pain require substantial staff and financial resources. Despite questionable scientific evidence of their effectiveness, they are widely used. Neck and shoulder complaints are common among working age adults and they are often associated with physical work load and stress. Pain in the neck and shoulder area cause biopsychosocial difficulties for the patient especially if disability due to pain is prolonged. To help patients with biopsychosocial problems or to prevent their development, multidisciplinary biopsychosocial programs are applied on rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain patients. Nevertheless multidisciplinary treatment programmes are often laborious and rather long processes and require good collaboration between the patient, the rehabilitation team and the work place. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain among working age adults. The reviewed studies for this structured Cochrane review were identified from electronic bibliographic databases, the Science Citation Index, reference checking and consulting experts in the rehabilitation field. The original search was planned and performed for more broad area of musculoskeletal disorders. Trials on neck and shoulder pain were separated afterwards. From all references found in our original search we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Trials had to assess the effectiveness of biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients suffering from neck and shoulder pain among working age adults. The rehabilitation program was required to be multidisciplinary, i.e.; it had to consist of a physician's consultation plus either a psychological, social or vocational intervention, or a combination of these. Four blinded reviewers selected the randomized controlled trials and controlled trials that met the specified inclusion criteria. Two experts in the field of rehabilitation evaluated the clinical relevance and applicability of the findings of the selected studies to actual clinical use. Two other blinded reviewers extracted the data and assessed the main results and the methodological quality of the studies using standardized forms. Finally, a qualitative analysis was performed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation. After screening 1808 abstracts, and the references of 65 reviews, we found only 2 relevant studies that satisfied our criteria. One of these was considered methodologically low quality randomized controlled trial and the other one was a methodologically low quality controlled clinical trial. The clinical relevance of included studies was satisfactory. The level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation was limited for neck and shoulder pain. We conclude that there appears to be little scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation compared with other rehabilitation facilities on neck and shoulder pain. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is a commonly used intervention for chronic neck and shoulder complaints, therefore we see an urgent need for high quality trials in this field.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain among working age adults: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. To evaluate the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain among working age adults. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation programs for neck and shoulder pain require substantial staff and financial resources. They are widely used, despite questionable evidence of their effectiveness. The reviewed randomized controlled and controlled trials appraising the effectiveness of biopsychosocial rehabilitation for working age patients with neck and shoulder pain were identified by searching electronic bibliographic databases, checking references, and consulting experts in the rehabilitation field. Four blinded reviewers selected the trials. Two specialists on rehabilitation evaluated the clinical relevance. Two other blinded reviewers extracted the data and assessed the main results and the methodologic quality of the studies. A qualitative analysis was performed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence. After 1808 abstracts and the references of 65 reviews were screened, only two relevant studies were found that satisfied the criteria. One of these was considered a methodologically low-quality randomized controlled trial, and the other was a methodologically low-quality controlled clinical trial. The clinical relevance of included studies was satisfactory. The level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain was limited. There appears to be little scientific evidence for the effectiveness on neck and shoulder pain of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation compared with other rehabilitation methods. There is an urgent need for high-quality trials in this field.