Prediction of "intent," "discrepancy with intent," and "discrepancy with nonintent" for the patient with chronic pain to return to work after treatment at a pain facility
Da. Fishbain et al., Prediction of "intent," "discrepancy with intent," and "discrepancy with nonintent" for the patient with chronic pain to return to work after treatment at a pain facility, CLIN J PAIN, 15(2), 1999, pp. 141-150
Objective: We previously determined that "intent" to return to work post pa
in facility treatment is the strongest predictor for actual return to work.
The purposes of the present study were the following: to identify variable
s predicting "intent"; to predict membership in the "discrepant with intent
" group [those chronic pain patients (CPPs) who do intend to return to work
but do not]; and to predict membership in the "discrepant with nonintent"
group (those CPPs who do not intend to return to work but do).
Design: A total of 128 CPPs completed a series of rating scales and yes/no
questions relating to their preinjury job perceptions and a question relati
ng to "intent" to return to the same type of preinjury job post-pain facili
ty treatment. These CPPs were part of a grant study for prediction of retur
n to work, and therefore their work status was determined at 1, 3, 6, 12, 1
8, 24, and 30 months posttreatment. Preinjury job perceptions and other dem
ographic variables were utilized using stepwise discriminant analysis to id
entify variables predicting 'intent" and predicting membership in the "disc
repant with intent" and "discrepant with nonintent" groups.
Setting: Pain facility (multidisciplinary pain center).
Patients: Consecutive low back pain CPPs, mean age 41.66 +/- 9.54 years, wi
th the most frequent highest educational status being high school completio
n (54.7%) and 60.2% being worker compensation CPPs.
Results: "Intent" was predicted by tin decreasing order of probability) pos
tinjury job availability variables, job characteristic variables, and a lit
igation variable. "Discrepant with intent" was predicted by tin decreasing
order of probability) for the 1-month follow-up time point, postinjury job
availability variables, pain variables, a litigation variable, and a functi
on perception variable, and for the final follow-up time point, pain variab
les only. "Discrepant with nonintent" was predicted by tin order of decreas
ing probability) for the I-month follow-up time point, a job availability v
ariable, a demographic variable, and a functional perception variable, and
for the final follow-up time point a pain variable and a job availability v
ariable. The percentage of CPPs correctly classified by each of these analy
ses was as follows: "intent" 81.25%, "discrepant with intent" 87.01% (at 1-
month follow-up) and 74.03% (final follow-up), "discrepant with nonintent"
92.16% (at 1-month follow-up) and 75.00% (final follow-up).
Conclusions: CPPs intentions of returning to their preinjury jobs are mainl
y determined by job availability and job characteristic variables but supri
singly not by pain variables. However, the results with "discrepant with in
tent" and "discrepant with nonintent" groups indicate that actual return to
work is determined by an interaction between job availability variables an
d pain variables with pain variables predominating for long-term outcome.