Search

Abstract: The 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) aims at improving the lives of persons with the lived experience of chronic pain by providing clearly defined and clinically useful diagnoses that can reduce stigma, facilitate communication, and improve access to pain management, among others. The aim of this study was to assess the perspective of people with chronic pain on these diagnoses. An international web-based survey was distributed among persons with the lived experience of chronic pain. After having seen an information video, participants rated the diagnoses on 8 endorsement scales (eg, diagnostic fit, stigma) that ranged from -5 to +5 with 0 representing the neutral point of no expected change. Overall ratings and differences between participants with chronic primary pain (CPP) and chronic secondary pain (CSP) were analyzed. N = 690 participants were included in the data analysis. The ratings on all endorsement scales were significantly higher than the neutral point of 0. The highest ratings were obtained for "openness" (2.95 ± 1.93) and "overall opinion" (1.87 ± 1.98). Participants with CPP and CSP did not differ in their ratings; however, those with CSP indicated an improved diagnostic fit of the new diagnoses, whereas participants with CPP rated the diagnostic fit of the new diagnoses similar to the fit of their current diagnoses. These results show that persons with the lived experience of chronic pain accept and endorse the new diagnoses. This endorsement is an important indicator of the diagnoses' clinical utility and can contribute to implementation and advocacy., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Introduction: Chronic back pain is a widespread medical condition associated with high socioeconomic costs and increasing prevalence. Despite the advanced implementation of multidisciplinary approaches, providing a satisfactory treatment offer for those affected is often not possible. Exposure therapy (EXP) promises to be an effective and economical form of treatment and in a previous pilot study showed to be superior to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing perceived limitations of movement. The current study aims to further compare the efficacy of both treatment methods and identify those patient groups that particularly benefit from EXP., Methods: The general objective of this randomized multicenter clinical trial (targeted N = 380) is to improve and expand the range of treatments available to patients with chronic back pain. As the primary objective of the study, two different psychological treatments (EXP and CBT) will be compared. The primary outcome measure is a clinically significant improvement in pain-related impairment, measured by the QPBDS, from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures are absolute changes and clinically significant improvements in variables coping, psychological flexibility, depressiveness, catastrophizing, exercise avoidance and fear of exercise, and intensity of pain. Participants are recruited in five psychological and medical centers in Germany and receive ten sessions of manualized therapy by trained licensed CBT therapists or clinical psychologists, who are currently in their post-gradual CBT training. Potential predictors of each treatment's efficacy will be explored with a focus on avoidance and coping behavior., Conclusion: This study will be the first RCT to compare CBT and EXP in chronic back pain in a large sample, including patients from different care structures due to psychological and medical recruitment centers. By identifying and exploring potential predictors of symptom improvement in each treatment group, this study will contribute to enable a more individualized assignment to treatment modalities and thus improves the care situation for chronic back pain and helps to create a customized treatment program for subgroups of pain patients. If our findings confirm EXP to be an efficacious and efficient treatment concept, it should gain more attention and be further disseminated., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05294081. Registered on 02 March 2022., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: There is a significant research gap with respect to the long-term sustainability of psychological treatment effects in chronic pain patients. This study aimed to investigate long-term treatment effects of two psychological treatments: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as a broad-spectrum approach and exposure as a specific intervention for fear-avoidant pain patients., Methods: Patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to CBT or exposure in vivo. Long-term follow-up (LTFU) data were available for 64 patients up to 8 years after treatment, with a response rate of 73%. The primary outcomes were pain-related disability and pain intensity and secondary outcomes were emotional distress, psychological flexibility, catastrophizing and pain-related fear. The data analysis was performed with longitudinal multilevel modelling., Results: Multilevel analyses showed improvements in all primary outcomes as well as all secondary outcomes from pre-treatment to LTFU for both treatments. The mean proportion of cases meeting reliable and clinical improved criteria in all primary outcome was 36% (range: 22%-46%) in the exposure group and 50% (range: 33%-60%) in the CBT group. Dropout analyses revealed significantly higher deterioration rates over time. Pre-treatment to LTFU effect sizes of the primary outcomes ranged from 0.54 to 1.59., Conclusions: Our results indicate that the effects of psychological treatments might be stable over several years. Treatment gains for exposure as a stand-alone treatment seem to be of shorter duration than a general CBT intervention. Thus, psychological treatments might offer a promising and sustainable long-term perspective for patients with chronic back pain., Significance: The long-term stability of treatment effects is a highly neglected issue despite its inherent importance in the context of chronic pain. This study is the first to investigate treatment effects of cognitive behavioural therapy and in vivo exposure in chronic back pain sufferers up to 8 years after treatment. The findings contribute to an understanding of the sustainability of psychological cognitive behavioural therapy-based intervention effects., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.)

Abstract: The International Classification of Diseases ( ICD ) is applied worldwide for public health data collection among other use cases. However, the current version of the ICD ( ICD-10 ), to which the reimbursement system is linked in many countries, does not represent chronic pain properly. This study aims to compare the ICD-10 with the ICD-11 in hospitalized patients in terms of specificity, clinical utility, and reimbursement for pain management. The medical records of hospitalized patients consulted for pain management at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, were reviewed, and all pain-related diagnoses were coded into ICD-10 and ICD-11 . The data of 397 patients showed unspecified pain was coded 78% in the ICD-10 and only 0.5% in the ICD-11 version. The difference gap in the proportion of unspecified pain between the 2 versions is wider than in the outpatient setting. The 3 most common codes for ICD-10 were other chronic pain, low back pain, and pain in limb. The 3 most common codes for ICD-11 were chronic cancer pain, chronic peripheral neuropathic pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. As in many other countries, no pain-related ICD-10 codes were coded for routine reimbursement. The simulated reimbursement fee remained the same when adding 397 pain-related codings, even if the cost of pain management, such as cost of labor, existed. Compared with the ICD-10 version, the ICD-11 is more specific and makes pain diagnoses more visible. Thus, shifting from ICD-10 to ICD-11 has the potential to improve both the quality of care and the reimbursement for pain management., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: An improved classification of chronic pain is included in the 11 th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems . For all diagnoses of chronic pain, an optional dimensional code for the chronic pain severity will supplement the categorical diagnoses. Pain severity combines pain intensity, pain-related interference, and pain-related distress. Each component is rated by the patient on a numerical rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10 and subsequently translated into severity stages ("mild," "moderate," and "severe"). This study aimed to evaluate this severity code by comparing the ratings with established psychometric measures of pain-related interference and distress. An online survey was posted to self-help groups for chronic pain, and 595 participants (88.7% women, 59.5 ± 13.5 years) rated each of the severity parameters (pain intensity, pain-related interference, and pain-related distress) on an NRS from 0 to 10 and completed the Pain Disability Index and the Pain Coping Questionnaire (FESV, 3 subscales). The participants reported a mean pain intensity of 6.4 ± 1.9, mean pain-related interference of 6.7 ± 2.1, and mean pain-related distress of 5.7 ± 2.5. The respective NRS ratings showed substantial correlations with the Pain Disability Index score ( r = 0.65) and the FESV subscales ( r = 0.65, r = 0.56, r = 0.37). The extension code for pain severity is a valid and efficient way of recording additional dimensional pain parameters, which can be used to monitor the course of chronic pain and its treatment. The specifier's efficiency makes it possible to use the code when a questionnaire would not be feasible due to time constraints, such as in primary care., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: For the first time, the upcoming International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) will include a comprehensive classification of chronic pain, which is based on the biopsychosocial definition of chronic pain. This presents a great opportunity for pain research and clinical practice. The new classification consists of 7 main diagnostic categories of chronic pain, which are further divided into increasingly specific levels of diagnoses. Each diagnosis is characterized by clearly defined operationalized criteria. Future users will need to familiarize themselves with the new system and its application. The aim of the present publication is to provide users of the ICD-11 chronic pain classification with answers to frequently asked questions regarding the ICD-11 as a whole, the ICD-11 chronic pain classification, and its application to common pain syndromes. The questions compiled in this study reached the International Association for the Study of Pain Task Force through different routes (eg, at conferences, by letter, or during field testing). Furthermore, the authors collected questions posted to the ICD-11 browser and contacted early users of the classification to enquire about their most frequent difficulties when applying the new diagnoses. The authors of the present publication prepared answers to these frequently asked questions. This publication intends to act as a guide for the future users of the new ICD-11 chronic pain classification, hence facilitating its implementation., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Objectives: The aim of our study was to determine and enhance physicians' acceptance, performance expectancy and credibility of health apps for chronic pain patients. We further investigated predictors of acceptance., Design: Randomised experimental trial with a parallel-group repeated measures design., Setting and Participants: 248 physicians working in various, mainly outpatient settings in Germany., Intervention and Outcome: Physicians were randomly assigned to either an experimental group (short video about health apps) or a control group (short video about chronic pain). Primary outcome measure was acceptance. Performance expectancy and credibility of health apps were secondary outcomes. In addition, we assessed 101 medical students to evaluate the effectiveness of the video intervention in young professionals., Results: In general, physicians' acceptance of health apps for chronic pain patients was moderate (M=9.51, SD=3.53, scale ranges from 3 to 15). All primary and secondary outcomes were enhanced by the video intervention: A repeated-measures analysis of variance yielded a significant interaction effect for acceptance ( F (1, 246)=15.28, p = 0.01), performance expectancy ( F (1, 246)=6.10, p = 0.01) and credibility ( F (1, 246)=25.61, p < 0.001). The same pattern of results was evident among medical students. Linear regression analysis revealed credibility (β=0.34, p < 0.001) and performance expectancy (β=0.30, p < 0.001) as the two strongest factors influencing acceptance, followed by scepticism (β=-0.18, p < 0.001) and intuitive appeal (β=0.11, p = 0.03)., Conclusions and Recommendations: Physicians' acceptance of health apps was moderate, and was strengthened by a 3 min video. Besides performance expectancy, credibility seems to be a promising factor associated with acceptance. Future research should focus on ways to implement acceptability-increasing interventions into routine care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Abstract: Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 persons and contributes substantially to the global burden of disease. The 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes a comprehensive classification of chronic pain. The aim of this ecological implementation field study was to evaluate the classification's interrater reliability and clinical utility in countries with different income levels. The study was conducted in 4 pain clinics in Cuba, India, and New Zealand. Twenty-one clinicians used the ICD-11 to diagnose and code n = 353 patients with chronic pain. Of these, 111 were assessed by 2 clinicians, and Fleiss' kappa was calculated to establish interrater reliability for any diagnosis assigned to ≥15 patients. The clinicians rated the clinical utility of all diagnoses. The interrater reliability could be calculated for 11 diagnoses. It was substantial for 10 diagnoses and moderate for 1 (kappa: 0.596-0.783). The mean clinical utility of the ICD-11 chronic pain diagnoses was rated as 8.45 ± 1.69/10. Clinical utility was rated higher for ICD-11 than for the commonly used classification systems (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.25) and differed between all centers (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.60). The utility of the ICD-11 diagnoses was rated higher than the commonly used diagnoses in Dunedin and Havana, and no difference was found in Kolkata and Hyderabad. The study showed the high interrater reliability of the new chronic pain diagnoses. The perceived clinical utility of the diagnoses indicates their superiority or equality compared with the classification systems currently used in pain clinics. These results suggest the global applicability of the classification in specialized pain treatment settings., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: Because chronic pain has been poorly represented in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) despite its significant contribution to the burden of disease worldwide, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) developed a classification of chronic pain that was included in the ICD-11 version as "MG30" and approved by the World Health Assembly in 2019. The objective of this field test was to determine how well the classification of chronic pain works in the context of the ICD-11. A web-based survey using the WHO-FiT platform recruited 177 healthcare professionals from all WHO regions. After a training on coding chronic pain hosted by the IASP Web site, participants evaluated 18 diagnostic codes (lines) of the 2017 frozen version of the ICD-11 and 12 vignettes (cases) describing chronic pain conditions. Correctness, ambiguity, and perceived difficulty of the coding were compared between the ICD-11 and the ICD-10 and the applicability of the morbidity rules for the ICD-11 verified. In the line coding, 43.0% of correct chronic pain diagnoses assigned with the ICD-10 contrasted with 63.2% with the ICD-11. Especially in cases in which the chronic pain is regarded as the symptom of an underlying disease, the ICD-11 (63.5%) commanded more correct diagnoses than the ICD-10 (26.8%). The case coding was on average 83.9% accurate, only in 1.6% of cases any difficulty was perceived. The morbidity rules were applied correctly in 74.1% of cases. From a coding perspective, the ICD-11 is superior to the ICD-10 in every respect, offering better accuracy, difficulty, and ambiguity in coding chronic pain conditions., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: The International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11) chronic pain classification includes about 100 chronic pain diagnoses on different diagnostic levels. Each of these diagnoses requires specific operationalized diagnostic criteria to be present. The classification comprises more than 200 diagnostic criteria. The aim of the Classification Algorithm for Chronic Pain in ICD-11 (CAL-CP) is to facilitate the use of the classification by guiding users through these diagnostic criteria. The diagnostic criteria were ordered hierarchically and visualized in accordance with the standards defined by the Society for Medical Decision Making Committee on Standardization of Clinical Algorithms. The resulting linear decision tree underwent several rounds of iterative checks and feedback by its developers, as well as other pain experts. A preliminary pilot evaluation was conducted in the context of an ecological implementation field study of the classification itself. The resulting algorithm consists of a linear decision tree, an introduction form, and an appendix. The initial decision trunk can be used as a standalone algorithm in primary care. Each diagnostic criterion is represented in a decision box. The user needs to decide for each criterion whether it is present or not, and then follow the respective yes or no arrows to arrive at the corresponding ICD-11 diagnosis. The results of the pilot evaluation showed good clinical utility of the algorithm. The CAL-CP can contribute to reliable diagnoses by structuring a way through the classification and by increasing adherence to the criteria. Future studies need to evaluate its utility further and analyze its impact on the accuracy of the assigned diagnoses., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Abstract: Pain is a frequent reason for patients to ask for medical services. However, systematic information about the extent and impact of pain, especially in developing countries, has not been available up to now. We evaluated whether the 11th edition of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) can fill this gap by coding all electronic out-patient medical records of the pain clinic at Siriraj Hospital in Thailand in 2019 (8714 visits), using the ICD-10 and ICD-11 browsers referenced on the WHO websites. The 3 most frequent pain-related codes in ICD-10 were R52.2 "other chronic pain" (29%), M54.5 "low back pain" (18%), and M79.6 "pain in limb" (13%). In ICD-11, the 3 most frequent codes were MG30.31 "chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain associated with structural changes" (28%), MG30.51 "chronic peripheral neuropathic pain" (26%), and MG30.10 "chronic cancer pain" (23%). Thus, using the currently valid ICD-10 system, roughly one-third of patient encounters were coded as "other chronic pain," and the next 2 were specifying the pain region rather than any underlying cause. By contrast, ICD-11 coding of the same patients identified underlying causes (bones and joints, somatosensory nervous system, cancer, or surgery), which provide guidance towards differential patient management. In our pain clinic, most patients suffered from chronic cancer pain, chronic neuropathic pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain, which were poorly defined or nonexistent in the current ICD-10 coding system. Compared with the ICD-10, the ICD-11 provides more detailed diagnostic categories and is more informative for clinical use, research, and resource allocation for pain-related conditions., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Background: Exposure treatments are shown to be effective in reducing pain-related fear and the perceived harmfulness of physical activities. However, due to the fragility of extinction its stability is questionable. We investigated the generalizability of exposure effects in chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients by integrating a behavioral test in the context of an intervention study., Methods: The study is an additional analysis of a randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of exposure in vivo. A total of 67 CLBP patients were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: Exposure-short (EXP-S); exposure-long (EXP-L) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Participants rated the expected harmfulness of daily activities (Photograph Series of Daily Activities) before and after therapy. Post-treatment participants were confronted with an individually tailored, threatening movement in a new context. Harm and pain expectations before the exposure were compared to the actual experience after exposure., Results: We found that EXP leads to more strongly reduced harm expectations (F(2,50) = 11.37, p < .001, η 2  = 0.31) compared to CBT, regardless of the duration of EXP. After therapy, patients expected less harm (F(2,50) = 3.61, p = .034, η 2  = 0.13) but not less pain (F(2,50) = 3.61, p = .034, η 2  = 0.13) when confronted with a novel movement., Conclusions: Exposure successfully reduced harm but not pain expectations in patients with CLBP. Further, preliminary results showed that these specific exposure effects were generalized to a novel activity in a different context outside therapy., Significance: This study investigats the generalizability and stability of exposure effects in patients with CLBP by combining a behavioral test with an intervention study. We found strong and stable effects on harm expectations but not on pain expectations. Results show promising preliminary evidence that reduced harm expectations can be generalized to a novel threatening activity in a new context. Clinical implications of our findings suggest that exposure treatment would benefit from a clear focus on harm expectations., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation -EFIC ®.)

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is defined as chronic pain arising from musculoskeletal structures such as bones or joints. Although comprising the most prevalent set of chronic pain conditions, it was not represented appropriately in the 10th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), which was organized mainly according to anatomical sites, was strongly focused on musculoskeletal disease or local damage, and did not consider the underlying mechanisms of pain. The new ICD-11 classification introduces the concept of chronic primary and secondary musculoskeletal pain, and integrates the biomedical axis with the psychological and social axes that comprise the complex experience of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Chronic primary musculoskeletal pain is a condition in its own right, not better accounted for by a specific classified disease. Chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain is a symptom that arises from an underlying disease classified elsewhere. Such secondary musculoskeletal pain originates in persistent nociception in musculoskeletal structures from local or systemic etiologies, or it may be related to deep somatic lesions. It can be caused by inflammation, by structural changes, or by biomechanical consequences of diseases of the nervous system. It is intended that this new classification will facilitate access to patient-centered multimodal pain management and promote research through more accurate epidemiological analyses.

This article describes chronic secondary headache and chronic orofacial pain (OFP) disorders with respect to the new International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The section refers extensively to the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) of the International Headache Society that is implemented in the chapter on Neurology in ICD-11. The ICHD-3 differentiates between primary (idiopathic) headache disorders, secondary (symptomatic) headache disorders, and OFP disorders including cranial neuralgias. Chronic headache or OFP is defined as headache or OFP that occurs on at least 50% of the days during at least 3 months and lasting at least 2 hours per day. Only chronic secondary headache and chronic secondary OFP disorders are included here; chronic primary headache or OFP disorders are listed under chronic primary pain syndromes that have been described in a companion publication. The subdivisions of chronic secondary OFP of ICHD-3 are complemented by the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders and contributions from the International Association for the Study of Pain Special Interest Group on Orofacial and Head Pain and include chronic dental pain. The ICD-11 codes described here are intended to be used in combination with codes for the underlying diseases, to identify patients who require specialized pain management. In addition, these codes shall enhance visibility of these disorders in morbidity statistics and motivate research into their mechanisms.

This article describes a proposal for the new diagnosis of chronic primary pain (CPP) in ICD-11. Chronic primary pain is chosen when pain has persisted for more than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress and/or functional disability, and the pain is not better accounted for by another condition. As with all pain, the article assumes a biopsychosocial framework for understanding CPP, which means all subtypes of the diagnosis are considered to be multifactorial in nature, with biological, psychological, and social factors contributing to each. Unlike the perspectives found in DSM-5 and ICD-10, the diagnosis of CPP is considered to be appropriate independently of identified biological or psychological contributors, unless another diagnosis would better account for the presenting symptoms. Such other diagnoses are called "chronic secondary pain" where pain may at least initially be conceived as a symptom secondary to an underlying disease. The goal here is to create a classification that is useful in both primary care and specialized pain management settings for the development of individualized management plans, and to assist both clinicians and researchers by providing a more accurate description of each diagnostic category.

Chronic pain is a major source of suffering. It interferes with daily functioning and often is accompanied by distress. Yet, in the International Classification of Diseases, chronic pain diagnoses are not represented systematically. The lack of appropriate codes renders accurate epidemiological investigations difficult and impedes health policy decisions regarding chronic pain such as adequate financing of access to multimodal pain management. In cooperation with the WHO, an IASP Working Group has developed a classification system that is applicable in a wide range of contexts, including pain medicine, primary care, and low-resource environments. Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3 months. In chronic pain syndromes, pain can be the sole or a leading complaint and requires special treatment and care. In conditions such as fibromyalgia or nonspecific low-back pain, chronic pain may be conceived as a disease in its own right; in our proposal, we call this subgroup "chronic primary pain." In 6 other subgroups, pain is secondary to an underlying disease: chronic cancer-related pain, chronic neuropathic pain, chronic secondary visceral pain, chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, chronic secondary headache and orofacial pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. These conditions are summarized as "chronic secondary pain" where pain may at least initially be conceived as a symptom. Implementation of these codes in the upcoming 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases will lead to improved classification and diagnostic coding, thereby advancing the recognition of chronic pain as a health condition in its own right.

Physical, mental, and social well-being are part of the concept of health according to the World Health Organization, in addition to the absence of disease and infirmity. Therefore, for a full description of a person's health status, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) was launched in 2001 to complement the existing International Classification of Diseases (ICD). The 11th version of the ICD (ICD-11) is based on so-called content models, which have 13 main parameters. One of them is functioning properties (FPs) that, according to the WHO, consist of the activities and participation components of the ICF. Recently, chronic pain codes were added to the 11th edition of the ICD, and hence, a specific set of FPs for chronic pain is required as a link to the ICF. In addition, pain is one of the 7 dimensions of the generic set of the ICF, which applies to any person. Thus, assessment and management of pain are also important for the implementation of the ICF in general. This article describes the current consensus proposal by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) and the International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM) for a specific set of FPs of chronic pain, which will have to be empirically validated in a next step. The combined use of ICD-11 and ICF is expected to improve research reports on chronic pain by a more precise and adequate coding, as well as patient management through better diagnostic classification.

The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11), proposes, for the first time, a coding system for chronic pain. This system contains 1 code for "chronic primary pain," where chronic pain is the disease, and 6 codes for chronic secondary pain syndromes, where pain developed in the context of another disease. This provides the opportunity for routine, standardised coding of chronic pain throughout all health care systems. In primary care, this will confer many important, novel advantages over current or absent coding systems. Chronic pain will be recognized as a centrally important condition in primary care. The capacity to measure incidence, prevalence, and impact will help in identification of human, financial, and educational needs required to address chronic pain in primary care. Finally, opportunities to match evidence-based treatment pathways to distinct chronic pain subtypes will be enhanced.

Chronic visceral pain is a frequent and disabling condition. Despite high prevalence and impact, chronic visceral pain is not represented in ICD-10 in a systematic manner. Chronic secondary visceral pain is chronic pain secondary to an underlying condition originating from internal organs of the head or neck region or of the thoracic, abdominal, or pelvic regions. It can be caused by persistent inflammation, by vascular mechanisms or by mechanical factors. The pain intensity is not necessarily fully correlated with the disease process, and the chronic visceral pain may persist beyond successful treatment of the underlying cause. This article describes how a new classification of chronic secondary visceral pain is intended to facilitate the diagnostic process and to enable the collection of accurate epidemiological data. Furthermore, it is hoped that the new classification will improve the tailoring of patient-centered pain treatment of chronic secondary visceral pain and stimulate research. Chronic secondary visceral pain should be distinguished from chronic primary visceral pain states that are considered diseases in their own right.

Background: A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed., Methods: Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation., Results: The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0., Conclusions: The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.

Our aim was to evaluate isolated elements of psychological pain treatments and explore treatment effects on biological stress markers. We employed a single-case experimental design with multiple baselines. Matching pairs of twelve participants (chronic low back pain >6 months; elevated pain-related fear) were randomly assigned to graded in vivo exposure (EXP) or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in a yoked design. Primary assessments were taken during baseline (7-26 days), treatment (23-44 days) and at 6-months follow-up (11-30 days) including changes in pain symptoms, disability, pain-related fear, acceptance, body confidence, self-efficacy, and positive thoughts. Psycho-educational, behavioral, cognitive, and exposure interventions were compared to baseline. EXP exhibited immediate middle-to-large effects; CBT's small-to-middle effects were delayed. Within the EXP approach, change mainly occurred during exposure but not during psycho-educational sessions. Overall cortisol was lower in EXP than CBT at post-treatment. We recommend integrating exposure elements in the management of CLBP to increase its efficacy. Psycho-educational sessions might not be necessary or should be adapted, e.g. with stronger focus on motivational aspects. Since CBT seemed to produce delayed effects, core CBT interventions such as cognitive restructuring might be added after exposure treatment to sustain therapeutic effects., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Patients' expectations have been shown to predict the course and treatment success of a variety of medical conditions. Therefore, expectation-focused psychological interventions (EFPIs) have been developed to use these expectation effects clinically. Importantly, EFPI differ with regard to the particular expectation mechanism being addressed, i.e., expectation optimization or expectation violation. The aims of this systematic review were to give an overview of the application of these expectation interventions and to evaluate their effectiveness., Methods: Several databases were searched to identify clinical trials or experimental studies that conducted EFPI among participants with various medical conditions. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool., Results: Eleven studies (N = 944) investigating different medical conditions (coronary heart disease, cancer, chronic pain) were included. Qualitative synthesis revealed positive effects of EFPI on clinical outcome variables in all studies. Expectation optimization approaches yielded particularly promising results. Because of the large heterogeneity of outcome measures, quantitative synthesis was not possible., Conclusion: This review highlights the potential of EFPI for optimizing treatment of patients with medical conditions. However, it seems that different expectation mechanisms might have different application possibilities. Therefore, we provide suggestions for further developing EFPI to tailor treatment and develop personalized psychological interventions. We argue that for this purpose, it is important to consider both disease-specific aspects and patients' personality traits. In addition, we discuss future challenges such as implementing EFPI into routine medical care.

Objective: Our aim was to establish whether Exposure, a specialized tailored treatment for chronic low back pain, has any advantages over cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) among individuals with high fear-avoidance levels. Second, we planned to compare short and long versions of Exposure. Third, we aimed to investigate whether Exposure can be delivered in an outpatient psychological setting., Method: A total of 88 Caucasian participants (55% women) were randomized to three different psychological treatment conditions, Exposure-long, Exposure-short, and CBT. All participants were suffering from chronic pain and elevated levels of pain-related anxiety and disability. The primary outcomes were disability (assessed using two different questionnaires, QBPDS and PDI) and average pain intensity; secondary outcomes included pain-related anxiety, psychological flexibility, coping strategies, and depression. Assessments took place at pretreatment, midtreatment, posttreatment, and 6-month follow-up., Results: Exposure was more effective than CBT at reducing movement-related disability assessed with the QBPDS. Exposure and CBT did not differ in reduction of pain intensity or disability assessed using the PDI. Exposure-short outperformed Exposure-long after 10 sessions, meaning that individuals improved faster when they were offered fewer sessions. Exposure could be safely delivered in the psychological setting. Concerning secondary outcomes, Exposure led to greater improvements in psychological flexibility relative to CBT. CBT was more effective than Exposure at enhancing coping strategies. In Exposure, significantly more participants dropped out., Conclusions: Although being more challenging to patients, Exposure is an effective treatment, which can be delivered in a psychological treatment setting and should be offered as a short-term treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

In 2009 the diagnosis chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors (F45.41) was integrated into the German version of the International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10-GM). In 2010 Paul Nilges and Winfried Rief published operationalization criteria for this diagnosis. In the present publication the ad hoc commission on multimodal interdisciplinary pain therapy of the German Pain Society now presents a formula for a clear validation of these operationalization criteria of the ICD code F45.41.

Purpose: The aims of the present analysis were to investigate the short- and long-term efficacy and treatment moderators of biofeedback as a psychological treatment option for chronic back pain., Method: A literature search using PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library identified 21 eligible studies including 23 treatment conditions and 1062 patients., Results: Meta-analytic integration resulted in a significant small-to-medium effect size for pain intensity reduction (Hedges' g = 0.60; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.44, 0.76) that proved to be stable with a significant small-to-large effect size (Hedges' g = 0.62; 95 % CI 0.40, 0.84) over an average follow-up phase of 8 months. Biofeedback also proved to be effective in reducing depression (Hedges' g = 0.40; 95 % CI 0.27, 0.52), disability (Hedges' g = 0.49; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.74), reduction of muscle tension (EMG; Hedges' g = 0.44; 95 % CI 0.22, 0.65), and improving cognitive coping (Hedges' g = 0.41; 95 % CI 0.26, 0.57). These effects remained comparatively stable at follow-up and for controlled studies only. Moderator analyses revealed longer biofeedback treatments to be more effective for reducing disability and a greater proportion of biofeedback in the treatment to be more effective for reducing depression. Publication bias analyses demonstrated the consistency of these effects., Conclusion: It is concluded that biofeedback treatment can lead to improvements on various pain-related outcomes in the short and long terms, both as a standalone and as an adjunctive intervention.

Objectives: Pain-related fear and avoidance of physical activities are central elements of the fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain. Pain-related fear has typically been measured by self-report instruments. In this study, we developed and validated a Behavioral Avoidance Test (BAT) for chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients with the aim of assessing pain-related avoidance behavior by direct observation., Materials and Methods: The BAT-Back was administered to a group of CLBP patients (N=97) and pain-free controls (N=31). Furthermore, pain, pain-related fear, disability, catastrophizing, and avoidance behavior were measured using self-report instruments. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach α. Validity was assessed by examining correlation and regression analysis., Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient for the BAT-Back avoidance score was r=0.76. Internal consistency was α=0.95. CLBP patients and controls differed significantly on BAT-Back avoidance scores as well as self-report measures. BAT-Back avoidance scores were significantly correlated with scores on each of the self-report measures (rs=0.27 to 0.54). They were not significantly correlated with general anxiety and depression, age, body mass index, and pain duration. The BAT-Back avoidance score was able to capture unique variance in disability after controlling for other variables (eg, pain intensity and pain-related fear)., Discussion: Results indicate that the BAT-Back is a reliable and valid measure of pain-related avoidance behavior. It may be useful for clinicians in tailoring treatments for chronic pain as well as an outcome measure for exposure treatments.

Background: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for pain offers an alternative to traditional Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) approaches. ACT focuses on the enhancement of 'psychological flexibility' that enables individuals to pursue their values and goals despite pain. To assess specific treatment effect or mediators and moderators of change, questionnaires measuring ACT constructs are needed., Methods: The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) was translated into German and completed by 182 participants with chronic back pain (70.3 % women, age 51.0 ± 10.5 years). Item analyses and a confirmatory factor analysis were computed as well as correlations with the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ), which measures related, but slightly different ACT-related constructs, and self-reported disability, pain intensity and further pain-related questionnaires., Results: The confirmatory factor analysis reproduced the original structure with two subscales and a good fit. The internal consistencies of the subscales were Cronbach's α = .91 (Avoidance) and α = .26 (Fusion). Average item-whole correlations of the items with the respective subscales were r = .71 (Avoidance) and r = .20 (Fusion). The highest correlations were observed for Avoidance with the CPAQ (r = -.81), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (r = .58) and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (r = .56) and for Fusion with the CPAQ subscale Pain willingness (r = -.55). The PIPS subscale Avoidance predicted pain-related disability even after controlling for catastrophizing and fear of movement., Conclusions: The PIPS subscale Avoidance may be a valuable instrument to assess treatment processes in future RCTs. The PIPS subscale Fusion seemed more problematic in the German sample with chronic back pain. More research on the comparison between PIPS and other questionnaires assessing psychological flexibility and the usefulness of the concept 'Fusion' for chronic pain are needed.

The relevance of a phobia-based conceptualization of fear for individuals with chronic pain has been much debated in the literature. This study investigated whether patients with highly fearful chronic low back pain show distinct physiological reaction patterns compared with less fearful patients when anticipating aversive back pain-related movements. We used an idiosyncratic fear induction paradigm and collected 2 different measures of autonomic nervous system activation and muscle tension in the lower back. We identified 2 distinct psychophysiological response patterns. One pattern was characterized by a moderate increase in skin conductance, interbeat interval (IBI) increase, and muscle tension increase in the lower back. This response was interpreted as an attention reaction to a moderately stressful event. The other pattern, found in 58% of the participants, was characterized by a higher skin conductance response, IBI decrease, and muscle tension increase in the lower back. According to Bradley and Lang defense cascade model, this response is typical of a fear reaction. Participants showing the psychophysiological pattern typical of fear also had elevated scores on some self-report measures of components of the fear-avoidance model, relative to participants showing the reaction pattern characteristic of attention. This study is the first to provide psychophysiological evidence for the fear-avoidance model of chronic pain.

Background: The purpose of the present study is to introduce an adapted protocol of in vivo exposure for fear avoidant back pain patients and its implementation in the German health care system without multidisciplinary teams. Case studies demonstrated promising effects but three preceding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could not support the former results. More empirical support is necessary to further substantiate the effectiveness of in vivo exposure., Methods: A total of 108 chronic low back pain patients are randomly assigned to one out of three conditions (A: exposure&#95;long (15 sessions), B: exposure&#95;short (10 sessions) or C: control condition cognitive behavioral therapy (15 sessions)). The inclusion criteria are: back pain ≥3 months and a sufficient level of fear-avoidance. An effect evaluation, a process evaluation and an economic evaluation are conducted. Primary outcomes are pain-related disability and pain intensity. Secondary outcomes are: emotional distress, fear avoidance, catastrophizing and costs. Data are collected at baseline, upon completion of the intervention, after 10 sessions, and at six months following completion of treatment. Besides the comparison of exposure in vivo and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), we additionally compare a short and a long version of exposure to analyze dose response effects., Discussion: This is, to our knowledge, the first RCT comparing in vivo exposure to psychological treatment as usual in terms of cognitive behavioral therapy. Results will help to find out whether a tailored treatment for fear avoidant back pain patients is more effective than a general pain management treatment., Trial Registration: The trial has been registered to ClinicalTrial.gov. The trial registration number is NCT01484418.

Despite effective treatment approaches within the cognitive behavioral framework general treatment effects for chronic pain are rather small to very small. Translation from efficacy trials to naturalistic settings is questionable. There is an urgent need to improve the effectiveness of well-established treatments, such as cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) and the investigation of mechanisms of change is a promising opportunity. We performed secondary data analysis from routine data of 1,440 chronic pain patients. Patients received CBT in a multidisciplinary setting in two inpatient clinics. Effect sizes and reliable change indices were computed for pain-related disability and depression. The associations between changes in the use of different pain coping skills (cognitive restructuring, activity despite pain, relaxation techniques and mental distraction) and changes in clinical outcomes were analyzed in structural equation models. Pre–post effect sizes range from g = 0.47 (disability) to g = 0.89 (depression). Changes in the use of cognitive restructuring, relaxation and to a lesser degree mental distraction were associated with changes in disability and depression. Effects from randomized trials can be translated to naturalistic settings. The results complement experimental research on mechanisms of change in the treatment of chronic pain and indicate an important role of cognitive change and relaxation as mechanisms of change. Our findings cautiously suggest that clinicians should optimize these processes in chronic pain patients to reduce their physical and emotional disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Accumulating evidence suggests an association between patient expectations and treatment success across various types of pain treatments. Expectations among treatment caregivers, however, are often neglected. Despite international treatment guidelines, only a small minority of chronic pain patients undergo psychological interventions. Therefore, our aim was to explore expectations among treatment receivers and caregivers especially concerning their attitudes towards psychological pain treatments. Methods: Two hundred ten (potential) treatment receivers (n=85 individuals suffering from chronic low back pain (CLBP); n=125 healthy controls) and 237 caregivers (n=75 physicians; n=64 psychotherapists; n=98 physiotherapists) provided ratings of expected treatment success for standardized vignettes describing patients suffering from CLBP and undergoing a pharmacological, psychological, or multimodal pain management program. Results: Individuals suffering from CLBP generally had lower treatment expectations than healthy controls. Both psychotherapists and physicians had higher treatment expectations from their own individual treatment approach. All participants expected the multimodal approach to be most effective. The psychological approach was expected to be more effective than the pharmacological approach – except for the physicians, who expected both treatment approaches to be equally effective. Conclusion: There is an urgent need to clarify, under which circumstances and how patient expectations can be altered among individuals suffering from CLBP. Our results appear to encourage the implementation of multimodal and psychological pain management approaches across various settings. We invite clinicians to reflect whether their own expectations are in line with the recommendations in international treatment guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Schmerz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

According to the dual process model of coping, assimilative or accommodative strategies can be applied to deal with aversive life situations. In people with chronic pain, the tenacious focus on achieving analgesia is often referred to as assimilative coping and associated with more disability and catastrophic thinking. In contrast, accommodative coping (accepting one's pain and setting new goals) appears to have beneficial effects. To assess how people with chronic pain use these different coping strategies, questionnaires measuring these concepts are needed. Following international guidelines, a German version of the Pain Solutions Questionnaire (PaSol) was prepared. A sample of 165 participants with chronic low back pain (CLBP; 60% women; age 53 ± 8.4 years) filled in the questionnaire and measures for pain-related disability, affective distress, catastrophic thinking, and attention to pain. Item analyses, an exploratory factor analysis, and correlations with pain-related measures were calculated. In addition, data from 98 participants who received psychological treatment were examined to investigate the PaSol's sensitivity to change. The exploratory factor analysis reproduced the original questionnaire's four-factor structure. Internal consistencies for the subscales ranged from Cronbach's a=0.72 to a=0.84. Mean item difficulties for the subscales ranged from pi=0.62 to pi=0.79. The highest correlations were found for Meaningfulness with catastrophic thinking (r=-0.58) and affective distress (r=-0.36). The PaSol subscale Meaningfulness predicted pain-related disability; the subscales Meaningfulness and Solving Pain predicted affective distress. Furthermore, the PaSol was found to be sensitive to detect changes over time. The German version of the PaSol is a reliable and valid instrument in the measurement of assimilative and accommodative coping strategies in people suffering from CLBP. It may provide a useful tool when examining temporal dynamics of the changing coping strategies in the transition from acute to chronic pain as well as during pain treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study design: Cross-cultural translation and psychometric testing. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to examine reliability and validity of a cross-cultural adaption of the German Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) in a context of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of graded in vivo exposure in chronic low back pain patients. Background: The QBPDS is one of the most widely used disease-specific disability questionnaires. In particular, for cognitive behavioral treatments with a clear focus on behavioral aspects such as graded in vivo exposure, the QBPDS provides an ascertained strategy with a sound conceptual basis and excellent quality criteria. Nevertheless, there is conflicting evidence concerning factor structure and a German adaption is missing. Methods: The cross-cultural adaption followed international guidelines. Psychometric testing was performed using data from 180 participants with chronic low back pain. The psychometric analyses included internal consistency, convergent, and divergent validity. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the underlying factor structure. Results: The QBPDS showed strong psychometric properties, with high internal consistency for the full scale (α =0.94) and good convergent and divergent validity. The factor analysis revealed a four-factor solution (bending, ambulation, brief effortful movements, and long-lasting postures). Conclusion: The translation and cross-cultural adaption of the QBPDS into German was successful. The German version proved to be a valid and reliable instrument and is well suited for use in the context of an exposure-based psychological treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aims of the present meta-analysis were to investigate the short- and long-term efficacy, multidimensional outcome, and treatment moderators of biofeedback as a behavioral treatment option for tension-type headache. A literature search identified 74 outcome studies, of which 53 were selected according to predefined inclusion criteria. Meta-analytic integration resulted in a significant medium-to-large effect size (d = 0.73; 95% confidence interval = 0.61, 0.84) that proved stable over an average follow-up phase of 15 months. Biofeedback was more effective than headache monitoring, placebo, and relaxation therapies. The strongest improvements resulted for frequency of headache episodes. Further significant effects were observed for muscle tension, self-efficacy, symptoms of anxiety, depression, and analgesic medication. Moderator analyses revealed biofeedback in combination with relaxation to be the most effective treatment modality; effects were particularly large in children and adolescents. In intention-to-treat and publication-bias analyses, the consistency of these findings was demonstrated. It is concluded that biofeedback constitutes an evidence-based treatment option for tension-type headache. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic pain after tissue trauma is frequent and may have a lasting impact on the functioning and quality of life of the affected person. Despite this, chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain is underrecognised and, consequently, undertreated. It is not represented in the current International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). This article describes the new classification of chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain for ICD-11. Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain is defined as chronic pain that develops or increases in intensity after a surgical procedure or a tissue injury and persists beyond the healing process, ie, at least 3 months after the surgery or tissue trauma. In the classification, it is distinguished between tissue trauma arising from a controlled procedure in the delivery of health care (surgery) and forms of uncontrolled accidental damage (other traumas). In both sections, the most frequent conditions are included. This provides diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions that persist after the initial tissue trauma has healed and that require specific treatment and management. It is expected that the representation of chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain in ICD-11 furthers identification, diagnosis, and treatment of these pain states. Even more importantly, it will make the diagnosis of chronic posttraumatic or postsurgical pain statistically visible and, it is hoped, stimulate research into these pain syndromes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide, the prevalence of cancer is rising and so too is the number of patients who survive their cancer for many years thanks to the therapeutic successes of modern oncology. One of the most frequent and disabling symptoms of cancer is pain. In addition to the pain caused by the cancer, cancer treatment may also lead to chronic pain. Despite its importance, chronic cancer-related pain is not represented in the current International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). This article describes the new classification of chronic cancer-related pain for ICD-11. Chronic cancer-related pain is defined as chronic pain caused by the primary cancer itself or metastases (chronic cancer pain) or its treatment (chronic postcancer treatment pain). It should be distinguished from pain caused by comorbid disease. Pain management regimens for terminally ill cancer patients have been elaborated by the World Health Organization and other international bodies. An important clinical challenge is the longer term pain management in cancer patients and cancer survivors, where chronic pain from cancer, its treatment, and unrelated causes may be concurrent. This article describes how a new classification of chronic cancer-related pain in ICD-11 is intended to help develop more individualized management plans for these patients and to stimulate research into these pain syndromes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The aims of the present analysis were to investigate the short- and long-term efficacies and treatment moderators of psychological interventions for fibromyalgia. A literature search using PubMed, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and manual searches identified 23 eligible studies including 30 psychological treatment conditions and 1396 patients. Meta-analytic integration resulted in a significant but small effect size for short-term pain reduction (Hedges’s g =0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27–0.48) and a small-to-medium effect size for long-term pain reduction over an average follow-up phase of 7.4months (Hedges’s g =0.47, 95% CI: 0.3–0.65) for any psychological intervention. Psychological treatments also proved effective in reducing sleep problems (Hedges’s g =0.46, 95% CI: 0.28–0.64), depression (Hedges’s g =0.33, 95% CI: 0.20–0.45), functional status (Hedges’s g =0.42, 95% CI: 0.25–0.58), and catastrophizing (Hedges’s g =0.33, 95% CI: 0.17–0.49). These effects remained stable at follow-up. Moderator analyses revealed cognitive-behavioral treatment to be significantly better than other psychological treatments in short-term pain reduction (Hedges’s g =0.60, 95% CI: 0.46–0.76). Higher treatment dose was associated with better outcome. Publication-bias analyses demonstrated that the effect sizes were robust. The results suggest that the effects of psychological treatments for fibromyalgia are relatively small but robust and comparable to those reported for other pain and drug treatments used for this disorder. Cognitive-behavioral therapy was associated with the greatest effect sizes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]