Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23548195›Full record

Trial reportTrials2013

Effects of nurse-led motivational interviewing of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain in preparation of rehabilitation treatment (PREPARE) on societal participation, attendance level, and cost-effectiveness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Vera-Christina Mertens, Mariëlle E J B Goossens, Jeanine A Verbunt, Albere J Köke, Rob J E M Smeets

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vera-Christina MertensDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Maastricht University, School for Public Health and Primary Care, CAPHRI, PO Box 616, Maastricht, MD 6200, The Netherlands. Vera.Mertens@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Mariëlle E J B Goossens
Jeanine A Verbunt
Albere J Köke
Rob J E M Smeets
Maastricht University · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-adherence and drop-out are major problems in pain rehabilitation. For patients with various health problems, motivational interviewing (MI) has shown promising effects to tackle these problems. In chronic pain patients, the effectiveness of MI is however unknown. Therefore, a MI-based pre-pain rehabilitation intervention (MIP) addressing motivation, expectations, and beliefs has been developed to prepare eligible patients for rehabilitation treatment. METHODS/

designSTUDY

designA parallel randomized controlled trial including two interventions: a motivational interviewing pre-pain rehabilitation intervention (MIP) and a usual care (UC) control arm. Follow-up will be 6 months after completion of rehabilitation treatment. STUDY POPULATION: One hundred and sixty (n = 80 per arm) patients with chronic non-specific musculoskeletal pain visiting an outpatient rehabilitation department, who are eligible to participate in an outpatient cognitive behavioral pain rehabilitation program.

interventionMIP consists of two sessions to prepare and motivate the patient for pain rehabilitation treatment and its bio psychosocial approach. UC consists of information and education about the etiology and the general rehabilitation approach of chronic pain. Both the MIP and UC contain two sessions of 45 to 60 minutes each.

objectiveThe aim of the current study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MIP compared to UC in terms of an increase in the long-term level of societal participation and decrease of drop-out during rehabilitation treatment.Main study endpoints: Primary outcome is the change in level of participation (according to the ICF-definition: 'involvement in a life situation') 6 months after completion of rehabilitation treatment. Secondary outcomes are adherence and treatment drop-out, disability, pain intensity, self-reported main complaints, (pain-specific) self-efficacy, motivation, and quality of life. Costs are calculated including the costs of the pre-treatment intervention, productivity losses, and healthcare utilization. Potential moderators and active ingredients of MI are explored. For the process evaluation, parameters such as MI fidelity, feasibility, and experiences are explored. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence on the effectiveness of this MI-based pre-treatment in pain rehabilitation. Furthermore, a cost-effectiveness analysis and exploration of moderating and working mechanisms of MI and an extensive process evaluation takes place.

trial registrationNederlands trial register NTR3065.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsPatient ComplianceResearch DesignSocial ParticipationAmbulatory CareChronic PainClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisDisability EvaluationFeasibility StudiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMotivationMotivational InterviewingMusculoskeletal DiseasesNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID23548195
PMCPMC3655830
OpenAlexW2126118966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.