Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Persistent pain and the injured worker: Integrating biomedical, psychosocial, and behavioral factors in assessment

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Health care providers are often asked to determine the level of impairment, degree of disability, and rehabilitation potential for injured workers. Compalints of persistent pain and especially compalaints that are: (1) not substantiated or that are disproportionate to physical pathology identified by physical examination and laboratory diagnostic procedures, or (2) that prove to be differentially responsive to identical treatments that are technically appropriate cause a great deal of frustration for health care providers and third-party payers. Much of the confusion in this area relates to the minimal association between (1) the extent of impairment and degree of disability, and (2) between the magnitude of physical pathology and severity of the pain report. In this paper, we discuss factors that contribute tothe frustration and confusion and propose a comprehensive biobehavioral model that integrates biomedical, psychosocial, and behavioral variables. We also present an assessment model, the Multiaxial Assessment of Pain (MAP) patients, and describe operationalizations of the primary components of this model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taylor H, Curran NM.The Nuprin pain report. New York: Louis Harris & Associates, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Frymoyer JW, Cats-Baril L. Predictors of low back pain disability.Clin Orthop Rel Res 1987; 221: 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Antonakes JA. Claims cost of back pain.Best's Rev 1981; 9: 36.

    Google Scholar 

  4. National Center for Health Statistics, Koch H. The management of chronic pain in office-based ambulatory care: National Ambulatory Care Survey.Advanced Data from Vital and Health Statistics. No. 123, DHHS Pub. No (PHS) 86-1250. Hyattsville, Maryland: Public Health Service, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  5. White AA, Gordon SL. Synopsis: Workshop on idiopathic low-back pain.Spine 1982, 7: 141–149.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, et al. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects.J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72-A: 403–408.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Deyo RA. The role of the primary care physician in reducing work absenteeism and costs due to back pain.Spine: State Art Rev 1987; 2: 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hall FM. Back pain and the radiologist.Radiology 1980; 137: 861–863.

    Google Scholar 

  9. White AA, Punjabi MM.Clinical biomechanics of the spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rockey PH, Tompkins RK, Wood, RW, et al. The usefulness of x-ray examinations in the evaluation of patients with back pain.J Fam Pract 1978: 7: 455–465.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wiesel SW, Tsourmas N, Feffer H, et al., A study of computer-assisted tomography. 1. The incidence of positive CAT scans in an asymptomatic group of patients.Spine 1984; 9: 549–551.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance.J Chron Dis 1986; 39: 897–906.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nachemson AL. The lumbar spine: An orthopedic challenge.Spine 1976; 1: 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rowe M. Low back pain in industry-a position paper.J Occup Med 1969; 13: 476–478.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fordyce WE, Lansky D, Calsyn DA, et al. Pain measurement and pain behavior.Pain 1984; 18: 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Naliboff BD, Cohen MJ, Swanson GA, et al. Comprehensive assessment of chronic low back pain patients and controls: Physical abilities, level of activity, and psychological adjustment and pain perception.Pain 1985; 23: 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Waddell G, Main CJ, Morris EW, et al. Chronic low-back pain, psychological distress, and illness behavior.Spine 1984; 9: 209–213.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Black RG. The chronic pain syndrome.Surg Clin NA 1975; 55: 999–1011.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Turk DC. Customizing treatment for chronic pain patients: Who, what, and why.Clin J Pain 1990; 6: 255–270.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Osterweis M, Kleinman A, Mechanic D, eds. Institute of medicine's committee on pain and disability and chronic illness behavior. InPain and disability: Clinical behavioral, and public policy perspectives. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brand RA, Lehmann TR. Low back impairment rating practices of orthopaedic surgeons.Spine 1983; 8: 75–78.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Clark WL, Haldeman S, Morris S, et al. Back impairment and disability determination. Another attempt at objective, reliable rating.Spine 1988; 13: 332–341.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Minnesota Workers' Compensation Division Committee to Study Schedules of Disability. Report to the legislature, 1983.

  24. Pope MH, Rosen JC, Wilder DG, et al. Relation between biomechanical and psychological factors in patients with low-back pain.Spine 1980; 5:173–178.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Roland M, Morris R. Study of natural history of low-back pain. Part II: Development of guidelines for trials of treatment in primary care.Spine 1983; 8: 145–150.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Flor H, Turk DC. Chronic back pain and rheumatoid arthritis: Predicting pain and disability from cognitive variables.J Behav Med 1988; 11: 251–265.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cairns D, Pasino J. Comparison of verbal reinforcement and feedback in the operants treatment of disability of chronic low back pain.Behav Ther 1977; 8: 621–630.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Turk DC, Rudy TE, Stieg RL. The disability determination dilemma: Toward a multiaxial solution.Pain 1988; 34: 217–229.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cailliet R. Disability evaluation.South Med J 1969; 62: 1380–1382.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fordyce WE.Behavioral Methods for chronic pain and illness. St Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lenthem J, Slade PD, Troup JDG, et al. Outline of a fear-avoidance model of exagerated pain perception.Behav Res Ther 1983; 21: 401–408.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Philips HC. Avoidance behavior and its role in sustaining chronic pain.Behav Res Ther 1987; 25: 273–279.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Council JR, Ahern DK, Follick MJ, Kline CL. Expectancies and functional impairment in chronic low back pain.Pain 1988; 33: 323–331.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Doleys DM, Crocker M, Patton D. Response of patients with chronic pain to exercise quotas.Phys Ther 1982; 62: 1111–1115.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Block AR, Kremer EF, Gaylor M. Behavioral treatment of chronic pain: Variables affecting treatment efficacy.Pain 1980; 8: 367–375.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Flor H, Birbaumer N, Turk DC. The psychobiology of chronic pain.Adv Behav Res Ther 1990; 12: 47–84.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Turk DC, Meichenbaum D, Genest M.Pain and behavioral medicine: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. New York: Guilford Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  38. United State Department of Health and Human Services: Report of the Commission on the Evaluation of Pain (SSA Pub. No. 64-031). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  39. National Institutes of Health. The integrated approach to the management of pain.J Pain Sympt Mnmt 1987; 2: 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Turk DC, Meichenbaum D. Cognitive-behavioral approach to the management of chronic pain. In Wall PD, Melzack R, eds.Textbook of pain (2nd ed.). London: Churchill Livingstone, 1989, pp. 1001–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Turk DC, Rudy TE. An integrated approach to pain treatment: Beyond the scalpel and syringe. In Tollison CD, ed.Handbook of chronic pain management. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins, 1989: 222–237.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Keefe FJ, Williams DA. New directions in pain assessment and treatment.Clin Psychol Rev 1989; 9: 549–568.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Karoly P, Jensen MP.Multimethod assessment of chronic pain. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rudy TE, Turk DC, Brena SF, et al. Quantification of biomedical findings of chronic pain patients: Development of an index of pathology.Pain 1990; 42: 167–182.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Turk DC, Rudy TE. Assessment of cognitive factors in chronic pain: A worthwhile enterpriseJ Consult Clin Psychol 1986; 54: 760–768.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Brena SF, Koch DL. A “pain estimate model” for quantification and classification of chronic pain states.Anesth Rev 1975; 2: 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Waddell G, McCuloch JA, Kummel E, et al. Nonorganic signs in low back pain.Spine 1980; 5: 117–125.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Carey TS, Hadler NM, Gillings D, et al. Medical disability assessment of the back pain patients for the Social Security Administration: The weighting of presenting clinical features.J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 691–697.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Carey TS, Fletcher SW, Fletcher R, et al. Social security disability determination. Knowledge and attitudes of consultative physicians.Med Care 1987; 25: 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wood RW, Diehr P, Wolcott BW, et al. Reproducibility of clinical data and decisions in management of upper respiratory illnesses: Comparison of physician and non-physician providers.Med Care 1979; 17: 767–779.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Agre JC, Magness JL, Hull SZ, et al. Strength testing with portable dynamometer: Reliability for upper and lower extremities.Arch Phys Med Rehab 1987; 68: 454–458.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nelson MA, Allen P, Clamp SE, et al. Reliability and reproducibility of clinical findings in low-back pain.Spine 1979; 4: 97–101.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Waddell G, Main CJ, Morris EW, et al. Normality and reliability in clinical assessment of backache.Brit Med J 1982; 284: 1519–1523.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Fordyce WE, Brena SF, Holcomb R. Relationship of semantic pain descriptions to physician diagnostic judgments, activity level measures, and MMPI.Pain 1978; 5: 293–303.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Deyo RA, McNiesh LM, Cone RO. Observer variability in interpretation of lumber spine radiographs.Arth Rheum 1985; 28: 1066–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Koran LM. Reliability of clinic methods, data, and judgments.New Engl J Med 1975; 293: 642–646, 695–701.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Hudgens RW. The predictive value of myelography in the diagnosis of ruptured lumbar disc.J Neurosurg 1970; 32: 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Deyo RA, Diehl AK. Lumbar spine films in primary care: Current use and the effects of selective ordering criteria.J Gen Intern Med 1986; 1: 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Million R, Hall W, Nilsen KH, et al. Assessment of the progress of the back-pain patient.Spine 1982; 7: 204–212.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rudy TE, Turk DC, Brena SF. Diffrential utility of medical procedures in the assessment of chronic pain patients.Pain 1988; 34: 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinic pain intensity: A comparison of six methods.Pain 1986; 27: 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods.Pain 1975; 1: 277–229.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Deyo RA. Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain.Arch Phys Med Rehab 1988; 69: 1044–1053.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Mellin G. Correlations of spinal mobility with degree of chronic low back pain after correction for age and anthropometric factors.Spine 1987; 12: 464–468.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Frymoyer JW, Matteri RC, Hanley EN, et al. Failed lumbar disc surgery requiring second operation: A long-term follow-up study.Spine 1978; 3: 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Frymoyer JW, Hanley E, Howe JH, et al. Disc excision and spine fusion in the management of lumbar disc disease: A minimum ten-year follow-up study.Spine 1978; 3: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Jette AM, Cleary PD. Functional disability assessment.Phys. Ther 1987; 67: 1854–1859.

    Google Scholar 

  68. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.Manual for Orthopaedic Surgeons in Evaluating Permanent Physical Impairment. Chicago: AAOS, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Engelberg AL, ed.Guides for the evaluation of permanent impairment (3rd Ed.). Chicago: American Medical Association, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  70. United States Department of Health and Human Services.Disability evaluation under Social Security: A handbook for physicians. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  71. World Health Organization.International classification of impairments disabilities and handicaps. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Deyo RA. Conservative therapy for low back pain. Distinguishing useful from useless therapy.JAMA 1983; 250: 1057–1062.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure.Med Care 1982; 19: 787–805.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Deyo RA. Comparative validity of the Sickness Impact Profile and shorter scales for functional assessment in low-back pain.Spine 1986; 11: 951–954.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Kerns RD, Turk DC, Rudy TE. The West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI),Pain 1985; 23: 345–356.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Turk DC, Rudy TE. Toward an empirically derived taxonomy of chronic pain patients: Integration of psychological assessment data.J Consult Clin Psychol 1988; 56: 233–238.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Turk DC, Rudy TE. The robustness of an empirically derived taxonomy of chronic pain patients.Pain 1990; 43: 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Turk DC. Strategies for classifying chronic orofacial pain patients.Anesth Prog 1990; 37: 155–160.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Keefe FJ, Block AR. Development of observation method for assessing pain behavior in chronic low back pain patients.Behav Ther 1982; 13: 363–375.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Keefe FJ, Wilkins RH, Cook WA. Direct observation of pain behaviors in low back pain patients during physical examination.Pain 1984; 20: 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Turk DC, Flor H. Pain > pain behavior: Utility and limitations of the pain behavior construct.Pain 1987; 31: 277–295.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Bigos SJ, Spengler DM, Martin NA, et al. Back injuries in industry: A retrospective study. III. Employee-related factors.Spine 1986; 11: 252–266.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Deyo RA, Diehl AK. Predicting disability in patients with low back pain.Clin Res 1986; 37: 814A.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Matheson LN. Work capacity evaluation. In Tollison CD, Kriegel ML, eds.Interdisciplinary rehavilitation of low back pain. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins, 1989, pp. 323–342.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, Pain Evaluation and Treatment Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Baum Boulevard at Craig Street, 15213, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    Dennis C. Turk Ph.D.

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Evaluation and Treatment Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    Thomas E. Rudy

Authors
  1. Dennis C. Turk Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas E. Rudy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turk, D.C., Rudy, T.E. Persistent pain and the injured worker: Integrating biomedical, psychosocial, and behavioral factors in assessment. J Occup Rehab 1, 159–179 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01073385

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01073385

Key Words

Search

Navigation