Objective: Patients with chronic pain disorder are generally thought to be difficult to treat in psychosomatic rehabilitation. On average, their disorders tend to take a more chronic course than those of other patients, and they develop a higher rate of additional socio-medical problems, all of which increase the probability of therapy failure. Most of the time, such failures are attributed solely to the desire for early retirement and disability pensions, that is, a characteristic of the patient. However, a lack of specific therapeutic offers for patients with predominant psycho-social problems has also to be considered. The project described was designed to evaluate a newly developed socio-medical therapy module. This module aimed at bringing more transparency to the process of assessing occupational capabilities and work performance, thus improving the patients' motivation to participate in the rehabilitation program as well as the overall therapy outcome.
Methods: The project was implemented as a controlled, prospective evaluation study. A quasi-experimental 3-factorial design was employed, including two group factors (factor 1: socio-medical intervention [EG 1] vs. relaxation therapy module [EG 2]; factor 2: current application for premature pension vs. none; factor 3: repeated measurements [admission to inpatient therapy, discharge from the clinic, 6-months follow-up]). The treatment conditions for the experimental groups were realized according to an ABBA-scheme. Patients in both treatment conditions took part in pain disorder-specific coping groups and were also included in the regular inpatient treatment. At all three points of measurement, socio-demographic, socio-medical, symptomatic and motivational patient characteristics were obtained as dependent variables by use of well-established standardized patient surveys. In total, 206 patients suffering from a chronic pain disorder took part in the study (n [EG1]=100; n [EG2]=106). Both treatment groups were considered equal regarding relevant sample characteristics.
Results: The socio-medical intervention was equally well accepted by all patients. Patients of the first experimental group turned out to be better informed about socio-medical issues than members of the second experimental group. The rehabilitation treatment program as a whole was--independently of treatment group affiliation--highly effective. Despite contrary expectations, the socio-medical intervention did not have an additional (differential) therapeutic effect on the patients at all points of measurement, not even on those participants currently applying for retirement pensions. Also, there were no significant differences between the treatment groups regarding the days of sick leave within six months after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation.
Conclusions: The original and possibly too ambitious goal of the project, namely to increase the rehabilitation success for patients with pain disorder and current pension applications by means of the therapeutic module labeled "social medicine", was not achieved. Nevertheless it is to be noted that this module was well received by the patients. Moreover, the authors consider it to be of high value in itself that this therapeutic module helps patients to become better informed.