Consistent evidence was found for the predictive value of pain intensity ( more pain-- > worse outcome ) , several work-related parameters ( e.g. , high satisfaction-- > better outcome ) , and coping style ( less active coping-- > better outcome ) .
Other sociodemographic and physical variables consistently lacked predictive value .
No consistent evidence was found for other psychological variables .
CONCLUSIONS It is impossible to define a generic set of predictors of outcome of multidisciplinary rehabilitation and back schools for patients with chronic low back pain because the review ed studies were descriptive or exploratory in nature , and most predictors were only studied once .
Nevertheless , for several predictors , consistent evidence was found .
OBJECTIVE To determine predictors of outcome of multidisciplinary rehabilitation-or back school treatment  for patients with chronic low back pain .
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Numerous review s have been performed to gain insight into which patients benefit from which treatment .
However , no review has systematic ally focused on predictors from multiple domains ( i.e. , sociodemographic , physical , and psychological ) , or on treatment outcome measured as activity limitation or participation restriction .
Assessing the Needs of Patients in Pain: A Matter of Opinion?
Study Design . A prospect i ve cohort study including patients with nonspecific spinal pain was performed . Objectives . To investigate whether the use of expert judgment in routine practice can provide a basis for reliable decision making concerning the need for intervention in patients with spinal pain and their ability to benefit from treatment . Summary of Background Data . A wide range of instruments and techniques are used to assess and treat patients with spinal pain . Many instruments are used without being clinimetrically tested . Methods . A question naire concerning the patients ’ need of treatment and their potential to assimilate it was sent to experts in the health care arena : physicians , physical therapists , social insurance officers . The experts included were those connected with patients participating in a larger outcome study . Two cohorts of patients ( sample 1 , n = 217 ; sample 2 , n = 257 ) were followed for 6 and 12 months , during which time the patients ’ health and work status were mapped . Results . No acceptable agreement was found between any of the experts ’ ratings of patients ’ needs and potential for rehabilitation . Logistic regression showed that the experts ’ judgments were based almost solely on the age of the patient . The prediction analyses showed that the most consistent predictor of the patients ’ status at the 6-month follow-up assessment was the patients ’ own belief in the existence of effective treatments and their perceived ability for learning to cope with the condition . Conclusions . Expert judgment as exercised in routine practice can not be used as basis for reliable decision making concerning the need of the patient with spinal pain for intervention and the patient ’s ability to benefit from treatment
Consistent evidence was found for the predictive value of pain intensity ( more pain-- > worse outcome ) , several work-related parameters ( e.g. , high satisfaction-- > better outcome ) , and coping style ( less active coping-- > better outcome ) .
Other sociodemographic and physical variables consistently lacked predictive value .
No consistent evidence was found for other psychological variables .
CONCLUSIONS It is impossible to define a generic set of predictors of outcome of multidisciplinary rehabilitation and back schools for patients with chronic low back pain because the review ed studies were descriptive or exploratory in nature , and most predictors were only studied once .
Nevertheless , for several predictors , consistent evidence was found .
OBJECTIVE To determine predictors of outcome of multidisciplinary rehabilitation-or back school treatment  for patients with chronic low back pain .
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Numerous review s have been performed to gain insight into which patients benefit from which treatment .
However , no review has systematic ally focused on predictors from multiple domains ( i.e. , sociodemographic , physical , and psychological ) , or on treatment outcome measured as activity limitation or participation restriction .