An evaluation of the long-term treatment outcomes of a multidisciplinary chronic pain centre program

Abstract

The Chronic Pain Center (CPC) in Saskatoon offers a multidisciplinary treatment program whose goals are to facilitate improved coping skills, function and well-being, and to promote self-reliant lifestyles. They have documented a statistically significant improvement on several measures of physical and social functioning at the completion of the six week program, but to date have no formal evaluation of the long term effects.

The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the CPC clients (treatment group) at least one year following their completion of the treatment program to determine if they had maintained those improvements and also to compare them to the group of clients (control group) who underwent initial multidisciplinary assessment at the Centre, but did not attend the six week treatment program. Evaluation by mail out questionnaires assessed several important aspects of chronic pain. A 34% response rate resulted in 142 participants for this study.

Data analyses involved a multi-stage process of univariate, bivariate and multivariate analyses. For the first goal, evaluating changes in the treatment group over time, the outcome variables considered had been administered at three points in time: admission to the CPC program, discharge from the six week program, and at study follow-up. For the second goal, the treatment and control groups were compared at one point in time; the study follow-up.

The study demonstrated that the scores on all outcome variables used in the follow-up study improved significantly from the time of assessment to the time of discharge for the clients who attended the CPC treatment program. These improvements declined over time, but remained significantly improved from the admission scores. (Wilks’ Ë=.501, F(1,48)=4.788, p=.000) However, the study was unable to demonstrate any significant differences between the treatment and control groups on any of the outcome measures at the time of the study follow-up.(Wilks’ Ë=.930, F (1,107) = 1.014, p=.430) There were several limitations to this study, including the use of a non-randomized control group and the method of recruitment, which may have introduced bias into the study and affected the ability to effectively explain this finding.