ArticleBritish journal of pain2023
Do baseline patient reported outcome measures predict changes in self-reported function, following a chronic pain rehabilitation programme?
Article in British journal of pain, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported outcomes as markers and predictors of functional recovery in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.Rheumatology international · 2026Review
- A Gamified Pain Management Intervention for Adults With Chronic Pain in Mainland China: Single-Arm Pre-Post Pilot Study With Machine Learning Predictive Modeling.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Acceptance and Fear-Avoidance Mediate Outcomes of Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs at 12-Month Follow-Up: A Clinical Registry-Based Longitudinal Cohort Study from the Swedish Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP).Journal of pain research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interdisciplinary pain management programmes, based on cognitive-behavioural principles, aim to improve physical and psychological functioning and enhance self-management in people living with chronic pain. Currently there is insufficient evidence about whether psychological, biological or social factors are predictive of positive outcomes following pain rehabilitation. This study aims to evaluate predictors of change in Brief Pain Inventory - pain interference score (BPI) in a clinical data set to determine whether age, sex and baseline outcome measures are predictive of improvement in pain interference following pain rehabilitation. Methods: A retrospective, pragmatic observational analysis of routinely collected clinical data in two pain rehabilitation programmes, Balanced Life Programme (BLP) and Get Back Active (GBA) was conducted. Standard regression and hierarchical regression analyses were used to identify predictors of change to assess temporal changes in BPI. Responder analysis was also conducted. Results: Standard regression analyses of 208 (BLP) and 310 (GBA) patients showed that higher baseline BPI and better physical performance measures predicted better improvement in BPI across both programmes. Hierarchical regression showed that age and sex accounted for 2.7% (BLP) and 0.002% (GBA) of the variance in change in BPI. After controlling for age and sex, the other measures explained an additional 23% (BLP) and 19% (GBA) of the variance, Conclusions: The combination of high self-reported pain interference and better physical performance measures may be a useful indicator of who would benefit from interdisciplinary rehabilitation. Further validation of the results is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.