Interprofessional rehabilitation programs are recommended by practice guidelines based on their effectiveness in improving health-related quality of life, pain, and function for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the most appropriate program characteristics are poorly described in the literature.
Objective
This scoping review aimed to synthesize the characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for people living with CLBP.
Methods
The scoping review was guided by the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, which has been further enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched to identify relevant published studies.
Results
Out of 13370 articles identified through our search, seventy-nine studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria. In the majority of the studies (n = 75), interprofessional rehabilitation programs for people with CLBP consisted of two or more of the following interventions: physical activity and exercise (n = 68), education (n = 61), psychotherapy (n = 52), and vocational support/advice (n = 31). In a few studies describing the underlying theories, the biopsychosocial model, which emphasizes the need to address social, psychological, and physical components in the management of CLBP, was the most often cited theoretical framework.
Conclusion
There is substantial variation in how interprofessional rehabilitation programs for people with CLBP are conceptualized and evaluated. A detailed description of the intervention evaluated, and the underlying theoretical frameworks was also lacking in most studies. We recommend the use of a consistent term and components aligned with practice guidelines.
SaragiottoBTde AlmeidaMOYamatoTP, et al.Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for nonspecific chronic low back pain. Phys Ther2016; 96: 759–763.
2.
LastARHulbertK. Chronic low back pain: evaluation and management. Am Fam Physician2009; 79: 1067–1074.
3.
MarinTJVan EerdDIrvinE, et al.Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2017; 6: Cd002193.
4.
KamperSJApeldoornATChiarottoA, et al.Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj2015; 350: h444.
5.
NicolVVerdaguerCDasteC, et al.Chronic low back pain: a narrative review of recent international guidelines for diagnosis and conservative treatment. J Clin Med2023; 12: 1685.
6.
WuAMarchLZhengX, et al.Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med2020; 8: 299.
7.
MaherCUnderwoodMBuchbinderR. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet2017; 389: 736–747.
8.
DagenaisSCaroJHaldemanS. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J2008; 8: 8–20.
9.
HoyDMarchLBrooksP, et al.The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis2014; 73: 968–974.
10.
GrabovacIDornerTE. Association between low back pain and various everyday performances. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift2019; 131: 541–549.
11.
SirbuEOnofreiRRSzaszS, et al.Predictors of disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Arch Med Sci2023; 19: 94–100.
12.
AiraksinenOBroxJICedraschiC, et al.Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J2006; 15: S192–S300.
13.
GuzmánJ. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review. BMJ2001; 322: 1511–1516.
14.
ChiarottoABoersMDeyoRA, et al.Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain. Pain2018; 159: 481–495.
15.
SchmidtAMTerkildsen MaindalHLaurbergTB, et al.The Sano study: justification and detailed description of a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation programme in patients with chronic low back pain. Clin Rehabil2018; 32: 1431–1439.
16.
ArkseyHO'MalleyL. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol2005; 8: 19–32.
17.
PetersMMarnieCTriccoAC, et al.Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth2020; 18: 2119–2126.
18.
WaddellG. The back pain revolution. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone: Elsevier, 2004.
19.
LevacDColquhounHO'BrienKK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci2010; 5: 69.
20.
CiezaAStuckiGWeiglM, et al.ICF Core Sets for low back pain. J Rehabil Med2004; 36: 69–74.
ArnetzBBGoetzCMArnetzJE, et al.Enhancing healthcare efficiency to achieve the quadruple aim: an exploratory study. BMC Research Notes2020; 13: 362–362.
23.
WamiSDFasikaSDonnellyC, et al.Characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for patients with chronic low back pain evaluated in the literature: a scoping review protocol. Systemat Rev2023; 12: 105.
24.
McKeownSMirZM. Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references. Systemat Rev2021; 10: 38.
25.
McHughML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Medica2012; 22: 276–282.
26.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al.PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med2018; 169: 467–473.
27.
GoughDThomasJOliverS. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev2012; 1: 28.
28.
ArtnerJKurzSCakirB, et al.Intensive interdisciplinary outpatient pain management program for chronic back pain: a pilot study. J Pain Res2012; 5: 209–216.
29.
SemrauJ, et al.Interprofessional rehabilitation improves disability in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain compared to multidisciplinary rehabilitation: long-termresults from a multicentre, quasiexperimental study. Pain Pract2014; 14: 99–100.
30.
SemrauJHentschkeCPetersS, et al.Effects of behavioural exercise therapy on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskel Disord2021; 22: 500.
31.
LeungGCNCheungPWHLauG, et al.Multidisciplinary programme for rehabilitation of chronic low back pain - factors predicting successful return to work. BMC Musculoskel Disord2021; 22: 251.
32.
HugeVSchlodererUSteinbergerM, et al.Impact of a functional restoration program on pain and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain. Pain Med2006; 7: 501–508.
33.
MoroneGPaolucciTAlcuriMR, et al.Quality of life improved by multidisciplinary back school program in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a single blind randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med2011; 47: 533.
34.
LambeekLCvan MechelenWBuijsPC, et al.An integrated care program to prevent work disability due to chronic low back pain: a process evaluation within a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskel Disord2009; 10: 147.
35.
PoulainCKernéisSRozenbergS, et al.Long-term return to work after a functional restoration program for chronic low-back pain patients: a prospective study. Eur Spine J2010; 19: 1153–1161.
36.
MoradiBHagmannSZahlten-HinguranageA, et al.Efficacy of multidisciplinary treatment for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective clinical study in 395 patients. J Clin Rheumatol2012; 18: 76–82.
37.
BuchnerMNeubauerEZahlten-HinguranageA, et al.The influence of the grade of chronicity on the outcome of multidisciplinary therapy for chronic low back pain. Spine2007; 32: 3060–3066.
38.
SmeetsRJVlaeyenJWSHiddingA, et al.Active rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: cognitive-behavioral, physical, or both? First direct post-treatment results from a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN22714229]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2006; 7: 5.
39.
XyrichisALowtonK. What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review. Int J Nurs Stud2008; 45: 140–153.
40.
MalladiN. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am2015; 26: 349–358.
41.
StanosSHouleTT. Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary management of chronic pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am2006; 17: 435–450.
42.
GatchelRJMcGearyDDMcGearyCA, et al.Interdisciplinary chronic pain management: past, present, and future. Am Psychol2014; 69: 119–130.
43.
BuchnerMZahlten-HinguranageASchiltenwolfM, et al.Therapy outcome after multidisciplinary treatment for chronic neck and chronic low back pain: a prospective clinical study in 365 patients. Scand J Rheumatol2006; 35: 363–367.
44.
Roche-LeboucherGPetit-Lemanac'hABontouxL, et al.Multidisciplinary intensive functional restoration versus outpatient active physiotherapy in chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine2011; 36: 2235–2242.
45.
TavafianSSJamshidiARMohammadK. Treatment of chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial comparing multidisciplinary group-based rehabilitation program and oral drug treatment with oral drug treatment alone. Clin J Pain2011; 27: 811–818.
46.
SchmidtAMLaurbergTBMollLT, et al.The effect of an integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: long-term follow up of a randomised controlled trial. Clin Rehabil2021; 35: 232–241.
47.
BendixAFBendixTVaegterK, et al.Multidisciplinary intensive treatment for chronic low back pain: a randomized, prospective study. Clevel Clin J Med1996; 63: 62–69.
48.
TakahashiNTakatsukiKKasaharaS, et al.Multidisciplinary pain management program for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain in Japan: a cohort study. J Pain Res2019; 12: 2563–2576.
49.
SteinmetzAPsczollaMSeidelW, et al.Effect of subgroup-specific multimodal therapy on chronic spinal back pain and function-a prospective inpatient multicentre clinical trial in Germany. Medicine2019; 98: e13825.
50.
NeesTARieweEWaschkeD, et al.Multidisciplinary pain management of chronic back pain: helpful treatments from the patients’ perspective. J Clin Med2020; 9: 145.
51.
BosyD, et al.An interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programme: description and evaluation of outcomes. Physiother Can2010; 62: 316–326.
52.
ClarkTWakimJCNoeC. Getting “unstuck”: a multi-site evaluation of the efficacy of an interdisciplinary pain intervention program for chronic low back pain. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2016; 4: 33.
53.
RichterMRauscherCKluttigA, et al.Effect of additional pain neuroscience education in interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy on current pain. A non-randomized, controlled intervention study. J Pain Res2020; 13: 2947–2957.
54.
KaiserUTreedeRDSabatowskiR. Multimodal pain therapy in chronic noncancer pain-gold standard or need for further clarification?Pain2017; 158: 1853–1859.
55.
LangEKastnerSNeundörferB, et al.Multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus usual care for chronic low back pain in the community: effects on quality of life. Spine J2003; 3: 270–276.
56.
GatchelRJHazardRGRainvilleJ, et al.Functional restoration - pitfalls in evaluating efficacy. Spine (Philadelphia, Pa. 1976)1992; 17: 988–995.
57.
HoffmannTCGlasziouPPBoutronI, et al.Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. Bmj2014; 348: g1687.
58.
StrandLILjunggrenAEHaldorsenEMH, et al.The impact of physical function and pain on work status at 1-year follow-up in patients with back pain. Spine2001; 26: 800–808.
59.
FurunesHStorheimKBroxJI, et al.Total disc replacement versus multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative discs: 8-year follow-up of a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Spine J2017; 17: 1480–1488.
60.
ChapmanJRNorvellDCHermsmeyerJT, et al.Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)2011; 36: S54–S68.
61.
ChiarottoATerweeCBOsteloRW. Choosing the right outcome measurement instruments for patients with low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol2016; 30: 1003–1020.
62.
DufourNThamsborgGOefeldtA, et al.Treatment of chronic low back pain: a randomized, clinical trial comparing group-based multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation and intensive individual therapist-assisted back muscle strengthening exercises. Spine2010; 35: 469–476.
63.
SemrauJHentschkeCBuchmannJ, et al.Long-term effects of interprofessional biopsychosocial rehabilitation for adults with chronic non-specific low Back pain: a multicentre, quasi-experimental study. PLoS ONE2015; 10: e0118609.
64.
SchmidtAMSchiøttz-ChristensenBFosterNE, et al.The effect of an integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme alternating inpatient interventions with home-based activities for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil2020; 34: 382–393.
65.
IbrahimMEWeberKCourvoisierDS, et al.Recovering the capability to work among patients with chronic low Back pain after a four-week, multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation program: 18-month follow-up study. BMC Musculoskel Disord2019; 20: 439.
66.
HochheimMRammPWunderlichM, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of a chronic back pain multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) compared to standard care for privately insured in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res2021; 21: 1362.
67.
van ErpRMAHuijnenIPKökeAJ, et al.Feasibility of the biopsychosocial primary care intervention ‘back on track’ for patients with chronic low back pain: a process and effect-evaluation. Eur J Physiother2020; 24: 197–207.
68.
PedersenKKWLangagergaardVJensenOK, et al.Two-Year follow-up on return to work in a randomised controlled trial comparing brief and multidisciplinary intervention in employees on sick leave due to low back pain. J Occup Rehabil2022; 32: 697–704.
69.
SkovboMHAgerboKJakobsenA, et al.Description of content, structure and theoretical model of a group-based pain management programme in the treatment of patients with persistent non-specific low back pain and psychological risk factors in a secondary sector setting. Clin Rehabil2021; 35: 1077–1088.
70.
BaileyJCKurklinskySSlettenCD, et al.The effectiveness of an intensive interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program in the treatment of post-laminectomy syndrome in patients who have failed spinal cord stimulation. Pain Med2018; 19: 385–392.
71.
BuschHBodinLBergströmG, et al.Patterns of sickness absence a decade after pain-related multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Pain2011; 152: 1727–1733.
72.
ConwayDLadlowPFerreiraJ, et al.Cognitive functional therapy (CFT)-based rehabilitation improves clinical outcomes in UK military personnel with persistent low back pain. BMJ Military Health2020; 166: 336–341.
73.
MengKPetersSFallerH. Effectiveness of a standardized back school program for patients with chronic low back pain after implementation in routine rehabilitation care. Patient Educ Counsel2017; 100: 1161–1168.
74.
SkouenJSGrasdalALHaldorsenEMH, et al.Relative cost-effectiveness of extensive and light multidisciplinary treatment programs versus treatment as usual for patients with chronic low back pain on long-term sick leave: randomized controlled study. Spine2002; 27: 901–910.
75.
LangagergaardVJensenOKNielsenCV, et al.The comparative effects of brief or multidisciplinary intervention on return to work at 1 year in employees on sick leave due to low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil2021; 35: 1290–1304.
76.
van ErpRMAHuijnenIPJJakobsMLG, et al.Effectiveness of primary care interventions using a biopsychosocial approach in chronic low back pain: a systematic review. Pain Pract2019; 19: 224–241.
77.
MonticoneMFerranteSRoccaB, et al.Effect of a long-lasting multidisciplinary program on disability and fear-avoidance behaviors in patients with chronic low back pain: results of a randomized controlled trial. Clin J Pain2013; 29: 929–938.
78.
CrisostomoRASchmidtJEHootenWM, et al.Withdrawal of analgesic medication for chronic low-back pain patients: improvement in outcomes of multidisciplinary rehabilitation regardless of surgical history. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2008; 87: 527–536.
79.
HaldemanSJohnsonCDChouR, et al.The Global Spine Care Initiative: care pathway for people with spine-related concerns. Eur Spine J2018; 27: 901–914.
80.
FosterNEAnemaJRCherkinD, et al.Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet2018; 391: 2368–2383.
81.
MorrisLDDanielsKJGanguliB, et al.An update on the prevalence of low back pain in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analyses. BMC Musculoskel Disord2018; 19: 196.
82.
ScascighiniLTomaVDober-SpielmannS, et al.Multidisciplinary treatment for chronic pain: a systematic review of interventions and outcomes. Rheumatology (Oxford)2008; 47: 670–678.
83.
Health improvement Scotland, Management of chronic pain. 2013, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN): Edinburgh.
84.
Institute of Health Economics, Evidence-informed primary care management of low back pain, in Towards Optimized Practice. 2015: Alberta, Canada.
85.
BanerjeeSArgaezC. Multidisciplinary treatment programs for patients with chronic non-malignant pain: a review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines. 2017: Ottawa (ON).
86.
WHO. Towards a common language for functioning, disability, and health: ICF. The international classification of functioning, disability and health, 2002.
87.
SagahutuJBKagwizaJCilliersF, et al.The impact of a training programme incorporating the conceptual framework of the international classification of functioning (ICF) on knowledge and attitudes regarding interprofessional practice in Rwandan health professionals: a cluster randomized control trial. BMC Med Educ2021; 21: 139.
88.
SagahutuJBKagwizaJCilliersF, et al.The impact of a training programme incorporating the conceptual framework of the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) on behaviour regarding interprofessional practice in Rwandan health professionals: a cluster randomized control trial. PLoS One2020; 15: e0226247.
89.
WuCASimonAJModrichMA, et al.Adapting the social-ecological framework for chronic pain management and successful opioid tapering. J Am Osteopath Assoc2019; 119: 793–801.
90.
BogardusRLMartinRJRichmanAR, et al.Applying the Socio-Ecological Model to barriers to implementation of ACL injury prevention programs: a systematic review. J Sport Health Sci2019; 8: 8–16.
91.
HallLWZierlerBK. Interprofessional Education and Practice Guide No. 1: developing faculty to effectively facilitate interprofessional education. J Interprof Care2015; 29: 3–7.
92.
MahdizadehMHeydariAKarimi MoonaghiH. Clinical interdisciplinary collaboration models and frameworks from similarities to differences: a systematic review. Glob J Health Sci2015; 7: 170–180.
93.
World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010.
94.
NtusiN. Health and rehabilitation sciences in a clinical context. South Afr Med J2019; 109: 139.
95.
CameronID. Models of rehabilitation - commonalities of interventions that work and of those that do not. Disabil Rehabil2010; 32: 1051–1058.
96.
SkivingtonKMatthewsLSimpsonSA, et al.A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ2021; 374: n2061.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
