The psychological assessment of chronic pain is often accomplished using questionnaires such as the (West Haven-Yale) Multidimensional Pain Inventory ((WHY)MPI) which is constructed to capture the multidimensionality of chronic pain. The (WHY)MPI theoretically originates from behavioural and cognitive behavioural theories of pain. It is divided into three parts and measures psychosocial and behavioural consequences of pain. This questionnaire has displayed satisfactory psychometric properties and translations of the original English version into German and Dutch have been demonstrated to be reliable and valid. The aim of this study was to test the reliability and factor structure of a Swedish translation of the (WHY)MPI, the MPI-S, and also to test the generalisability of the factor structure found for the (WHY)MPI. We performed analyses of internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha, and carried out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) employing LISREL-8 on a population of 682 patients suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain. Test-retest analysis was accomplished on a sub-sample of 54 individuals taken from the aforementioned population. For sections 1 and 2 of the MPI-S the overall reliability and stability were good, and after the exclusion of four items, the factor structure was similar to other versions of the MPI. For section 3, despite removal of five questions, the proposed factor structure could not be replicated. This part of the inventory is designed to measure the extent of different types of activities, and our results suggest that this section may only be used for assessing general activity level. We conclude that, with a few adjustments, the analyses yielded satisfactory results for sections 1 and 2 of the MPI-S regarding its factor structure, reliability and generalisability. For section 3 the hypothesised factor structure could not be confirmed.

The current investigation studied the effectiveness of a secondary prevention program for nurses with back pain who were deemed at risk for developing a chronic problem. A 2 X 3 repeated measures design was employed with 2 groups and 3 assessment periods. The treatment group received an intervention designed to reduce current problems, but above all to prevent reinjury and minor pains from becoming chronic medical problems, and it included a physical and behavioral therapy package. The control group was placed on a waiting-list. Results indicated that the treatment group had significantly greater improvements than the control group for pain intensity, anxiety, sleep quality and fatigue ratings, observed pain behavior, activities, mood, and helplessness. These differences were generally maintained at the 6 month follow-up. In addition, the treatment group broke a trend for increasing amounts of pain-related absenteeism, while the control group did not. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that a secondary prevention program aimed at altering life style factors may represent an effective method for dealing with musculoskeletal pain problems.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of a behavioural medicine rehabilitation programme and the outcome of its two main components, compared to a 'treatment-as-usual' control group. The study employed a 4 x 5 repeated-measures design with four groups and five assessment periods during a 3-year follow-up. The group studied consisted of blue-collar and service/care workers on sick leave, identified in a nationwide health insurance scheme in Sweden. After inclusion, the subjects were randomised to one of the four conditions: behaviour-oriented physiotherapy (PT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural medicine rehabilitation consisting of PT+CBT (BM) and a 'treatment-as-usual' control group (CG). Outcome variables were sick leave, early retirement and health-related quality of life. A cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing the programmes, was made. The results showed, consistently, the full-time behavioural medicine programme being superior to the three other conditions. The strongest effect was found on females. Regarding sick leave, the mean difference in the per-protocol analysis between the BM programme and the control group was 201 days, thus reducing sick leave by about two-thirds of a working year. Rehabilitating women has a substantial impact on costs for production losses, whereas rehabilitating men seem to be effortless with no significant effect on either health or costs. In conclusion, a full-time behavioural medicine programme is a cost-effective method for improving health and increasing return to work in women working in blue-collar or service/care occupations and suffering from back/neck pain.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of a behavioral medicine (BM) rehabilitation program and the outcome of its two main components, compared to a 'treatment-as-usual' control group (CG). The study employed a 4x4 repeated-measures design with four groups and four assessment periods (pre-treatment, post-treatment, 6-month follow-up, and 18-month follow-up). The group studied consisted of subjects on sick leave identified in a nationwide health insurance scheme in Sweden. After inclusion, the subjects were randomized to one of four conditions, which were: (1) behavior-oriented physical therapy (PT); (2) cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT); (3) BM rehabilitation consisting of PT+CBT (BM); (4) a 'treatment-as-usual' CG. The treatments were given over a period of 4 weeks, PT and CBT on a part-time basis and BM on a full-time basis. Outcome variables were sick leave, early retirement, and health-related quality of life (measured using the Short Form Health Survey, SF-36). The results showed that the risk of being granted full-time early retirement was significantly lower for females in PT and CBT compared to the CG during the 18-month follow-up period. However, the total absence from work (sick listing plus early retirement) in days over the 18-month follow-up period was not significantly different in the CG compared to the treatments. On the SF-36, women in CBT and BM reported a significantly better health-related quality of life than women in the CG at the 18-month follow-up. No significant differences for men were found on the SF-36 scales. In conclusion, the results revealed gender differences in the outcome of the treatments and that the components of this BM program yielded as good results as the whole program.

We did a descriptive study of 121 patients (71 women and 50 men) to explore the role of gender in coping with long-term intractable pain of the neck, shoulder and back and to determine the consequences of pain. Questionnaires used to assess the dependent variables were the Coping Strategy Questionnaire (CSQ) and the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI). Distinctions were found between men and women. In particular, the coping strategies used by women were those which in previous research had been found to be associated with dysfunction and poor outcome in terms of rehabilitation. Moreover, considering the consequences of pain on daily living, a more complex pattern of related factors was found in women rather than men. Given the high proportion of working women in Sweden with long-term musculoskeletal pain and considering recent observations in controlled studies showing that the benefits of cognitive behaviourally based treatments are confined to women, our findings suggest the need to tailor rehabilitative strategies differently for men and women and point to a research agenda which pays more attention to the distinctive challenges of women in the workplace when they are affected by chronic ailments.