134
T. Benz et al.
did not permit a causal statement on the effectiveness
of the treatment, quantification and comparison of
changes in health were possible. The differences in
changes in health between the 2 groups were adjusted
by cofactors that were unequally distributed at baseline
and which possibly confounded the outcome changes.
In conclusion, ISP reported lower improvements
in state of health after an IPMP than GSP. In the sub-
sequent follow-ups, these differences were further
accentuated. The reasons for these differences remain
unclear, but may have consequences for the future
management of ISP in IPMPs. Patients with a migra-
tion background may have special needs in therapeutic
management and addressing them might enhance the
positive outcome in the short- and mid-term.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank all patients for participating in the study
and the members of the Pain Center of the rehabilitation clinic
“RehaClinic” in Bad Zurzach, Switzerland. We would also thank
Joy Buchanan and Stacy Müller for English editing. The authors
received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
REFERENCES
1. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D.
Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on
daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain 2006; 10: 287–333.
2. Green CR, Anderson KO, Baker TA, Campbell LC, Decker
S, Fillingim RB, et al. The unequal burden of pain: con-
fronting racial and ethnic disparities in pain. Pain Med
2003; 4: 277–294.
3. Sleptsova M, Woessmer B, Grossman P, Langewitz W.
Culturally sensitive group therapy for Turkish patients
suffering from chronic pain: a randomised controlled
intervention trial. Swiss Med Wkly 2013; 143: w13875.
4. Palmer B, Macfarlane G, Afzal C, Esmail A, Silman A, Lunt
M. Acculturation and the prevalence of pain amongst South
Asian minority ethnic groups in the UK. Rheumatology
2007; 46: 1009–1014.
5. Allison TR, Symmons DPM, Brammah T, Haynes P, Rogers
A, Roxby M, et al. Musculoskeletal pain is more generalised
among people from ethnic minorities than among white
people in Greater Manchester. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61:
151–156.
6. Angst F, Brioschi R, Main CJ, Lehmann S, Aeschlimann A.
Interdisciplinary rehabilitation in fibromyalgia and chronic
back pain: a prospective outcome study. J Pain 2006; 7:
807–815.
7. Angst F, Verra M, Lehmann S, Brioschi R, Aeschlimann
A. Clinical effectiveness of an interdisciplinary pain ma-
nagement programme compared with standard inpatient
rehabilitation in chronic pain: a naturalistic, prospective
controlled cohort study. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 569–575.
8. Kamper SJ, Apeldoorn AT, Chiarotto A, Smeets RJEM,
Ostelo RWJG, Guzman J, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsycho-
social rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2014; 9: CD000963.
9. Lera S, Gelman SM, López MJ, Abenoza M, Zorrilla JG,
Castro-Fornieles J, et al. Multidisciplinary treatment of
fibromyalgia: does cognitive behavior therapy increase
www.medicaljournals.se/jrm
the response to treatment? J Psychosom Res 2009; 67:
433–441.
10. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge
for biomedicine. Science 1977; 196: 129–136.
11. Waddell G. The Back Pain Revolution. 2nd edn. Edinburgh:
Churchill Livingstone; 2004, p. 480.
12. Linton SJ, Shaw WS. Impact of psychological factors in
the experience of pain. Phys Ther 2011; 91: 700–711.
13. Nicholas MK, Linton SJ, Watson PJ, Main CJ, ‘Decade of
the Flags’ Working Group. Early identification and ma-
nagement of psychological risk factors (‘yellow flags’)
in patients with low back pain: a reappraisal. Phys Ther
2011; 91: 737–753.
14. Waddell G, Burton AK. Concepts of rehabilitation for the
management of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheu-
matol 2005; 19: 655–670.
15. Burckhardt CS. Multidisciplinary approaches for manage-
ment of fibromyalgia. Curr Pharm Des 2006; 12: 59–66.
16. Shaw WS, Campbell P, Nelson CC, Main CJ, Linton SJ.
Effects of workplace, family and cultural influences on
low back pain: what opportunities exist to address social
factors in general consultations? Best Pract Res Clin Rheu-
matol 2013; 27: 637–648.
17. Foreign population. Federal Statistical Office. 2017 [cited
2017 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/
bfs/en/home/statistics/population/migration-intergration/
foreign.html.
18. Plaza Del Pino FJ, Soriano E, Higginbottom GM. Sociocul-
tural and linguistic boundaries influencing intercultural
communication between nurses and Moroccan patients
in southern Spain: a focused ethnography. BMC Nurs
2013; 12: 14.
19. Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, Bennett RM, Bombardier
C, Goldenberg DL, et al. The American College of Rheuma-
tology 1990 Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia.
Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee. Arthritis
Rheum 1990; 33: 160–172.
20. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to Score Version 2
of the SF-36 Health Survey. 2nd edn. Lincoln, RI: Quality
Metric Incorporated; 2000.
21. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B, New England
Medical Center Hospital, Health Institute. SF-36 health
survey: manual and interpretation guide. 3rd ed. Boston:
Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 2004.
22. Busija L, Pausenberger E, Haines TP, Haymes S, Buch-
binder R, Osborne RH. Adult measures of general health
and health-related quality of life: Medical Outcomes
Study Short Form 36-Item (SF-36) and Short Form 12-
Item (SF-12) Health Surveys, Nottingham Health Profile
(NHP), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Medical Outcomes
Study Short Form 6D (SF-6D), Health Utilities Index Mark
3 (HUI3), Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), and Assess-
ment of Quality of Life (AQoL). Arthritis Care Res 2011;
63 Suppl 11: S383–S412.
23. Bullinger M, Kirchberger I. Fragebogen zum Gesundheit-
szustand: SF-36; Handanweisung Hogrefe, Verlag für
Psychologie; 1998.
24. Apolone G, Mosconi P. The Italian SF-36 Health Survey:
translation, validation and norming. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;
51: 1025–1036.
25. Angst F, Pap G, Mannion AF, Herren DB, Aeschlimann
A, Schwyzer H-K, et al. Comprehensive assessment of
clinical outcome and quality of life after total shoulder
arthroplasty: usefulness and validity of subjective outcome
measures. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51: 819–828.
26. Borenstein M. Effect sizes for continuous data. In: Cooper
H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, eds. The handbook of research
synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd edn. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation; 2009; p. 222–236.
27. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. The minimal clinically
important difference raised the significance of outcome
effects above the statistical level, with methodological
implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;