Ulysses: the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary cognitive behavioural pain management programme—an 8-year review
- 580 Downloads
To characterise a cohort of patients with chronic pain registered to the Ulysses cognitive behavioural pain management programme (CBT-PMP) and to evaluate the effectiveness of the CBT-PMP 6 months post-discharge.
A review of patients referred to the Ulysses CBT-PMP from 2002 to 2010 was undertaken. The profile of patients was established. Domains measured included pain, physical and psychological function. Relationships between these factors were explored. Clinically significant changes in outcome measures were established at the 6-month follow-up.
In total 553 patients registered to the CBT-PMP, pre–post data were available for 91 % of patients and 52 % at 6 months. The majority of patients were female and aged between 40 and 50 years. Most patients had significant psychological morbidity (76 % depression, 84.5 % anxiety), moderate reports of pain [numerical rating scale, mean (SD) 6.0 (2.2)], and low levels of functional activity. At 6 months follow-up, statistically significant positive findings for physical and psychological outcome measures are supplemented by results showing their clinical significance. With regard to psychological function, a clinically significant change (depending on outcome measure) was shown between 1 in 2 and 1 in 10 patients. Improvements in physical function were lower with rates of 1 in 4 to 1 in 14 reporting significant gains.
The effectiveness of the Ulysses CBT-PMP is established with measures of clinically significant change for physical and psychological outcomes contributing to the evidence for this novel approach of analysis. Future research determining benchmarks for CBT-PMP outcomes will assist clinicians in monitoring and enhancing patient’s progress in clinical practice.
KeywordsCognitive behavioural pain management programme Clinical significant changes Chronic pain
Ms Catherine Paisley, Pain Service, Adelaide and Meath Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin 24.
Conflict of interest
- 2.Bonica JJ, Loeser JD (2000) History of pain concepts and therapies. Bonica’s management of pain. 3rd edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 8.British Pain Society. www.britishpainsociety.org. Accessed 8 March 2013
- 11.Eccleston C, Williams AC, Morley S (2009) Psycholoical therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 15(2):CD007407Google Scholar
- 15.Morley S, Williams A (2002) Conducting and evaluating treatment outcome studies. In: Turk DC, Gatchel RJ (eds) Psychological approaches to pain management, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New York, pp 52–70Google Scholar
- 25.Beissner K, Parker SJ, Henderson CR Jr (2012) A cognitive-behavioral plus exercise intervention for older adults with chronic back pain: race/ethnicity effect? J Aging Phys Act 2:246–265Google Scholar
- 28.Fordyce WE (1976) Behavioural methods for chronic pain and illness. Mosby, St LouisGoogle Scholar
- 29.Turk DC, Meichenbaum D, Genest M (1983) Pain and Behavioural medicine: a cognitive behavioural perspective. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 32.Bolton JE, Wilkinson RC (1998) Responsiveness of pain scales: a comparison of three pain intensity measures in chiropractic patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1:1–7Google Scholar
- 44.Patrick D, Peach H (eds) (1989) Disablement in the Community: a sociomedical press perspective. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 45.McDowell I, Newell C (2006) Measuring Health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 46.Cohen JW (1998) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- 54.Wand BM, O’Connell NE (2008) Chronic non-specific low back pain—subgroups or a single mechanism? BMS Musculoskeletal Disord 9(11):1–15Google Scholar
- 60.(2010) ACSM’s guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 67.Roth AD, Fonagy P (2005) What works for whom: a critical review of psychotherapy research, 2nd edn. Guildford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar