ClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT05058547SWEPPEUpdated Mar 25, 2022

A Digital Support to Facilitate Sustainable Return to Work for Persons With Chronic Pain and Their Employers

An interventional study of SWEPPE in Chronic Pain, sponsored by Linkoeping University. Status unknown at 5 sites in Sweden. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 65 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-03-25.

Sponsored by Linkoeping University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Mar 2022), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
360
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 65 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) severely affects the individual's quality of life, functioning and ability to work, and comes with significant societal costs for sick leave and loss of productivity. After completing an Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Program (IPRP), patients with CMSP experience a gap in the return to work (RTW) process when the responsibility for RTW is taken over by the employer. To fill this gap, we aim to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a digital support (SWEPPE) for promoting a sustainable RTW for persons with CMSP and to facilitate the employers' supportive role and responsibilities in the process. Our hypothesis is that using SWEPPE will decrease the need for sick-leave.

SWEPPE is a smartphone application where the individual can create an action plan, perform daily registrations of health aspects, self-monitoring of health aspects and goals, have access to a library with evidence-based facts and a coach, and the possibility to share information with the employer.The employer access SWEPPE via a web application.

In this trial, we will recruit patients with CMSP aged 18-65 years who have completed IPRP, and who need support during RTW or continued support at the work placement for creating a sustainable work situation. The participants will be randomly assigned to either receive SWEPPE or to the control group. The intervention group will use SWEPPE during twelve months and the control group will not receive any active intervention for RTW which is standard clinical practice. Participants will be recruited from specialist and primary care level units connected to the Swedish National Quality Registry for Pain Rehabilitation (SQRP) and providing IPRP for patients with CMSP.

All participants will fill in questionnaires when they have completed the rehabilitation program and before the intervention starts. Study ending assessment will be performed after twelve months.

The clinical effectiveness of SWEPPE will be assessed by number of days with sickness cash benefit. Several dimensions of sick-leave will be assessed according to the Swedish Social Insurance Agency's (SSIA) proposal of outcome measures of RTW. Other outcomes and explanatory variables including important domains affected by CMSP such as health-related quality of life, functioning and work ability will be collected. A sample size calculation indicates the need for recruiting 360 participants (n=180 for each group).

02

Conditions studied

  • Chronic Pain

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • collaboration support
  • eHealth
  • employer support
  • smartphone application
  • return to work
  • self-management
03

In context

Chronic Pain

2,998 studies on the registry are indexed under Chronic Pain; 706 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 360 is above the median of 60 across 2,209 interventional studies indexed under Chronic Pain.

Browse Chronic Pain studies →

Lead sponsor

Linkoeping University is the lead sponsor of 193 studies on the registry; 41 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 65 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

Patients entering the trial must have completed IPRP. The principal inclusion criteria for IPRP in Sweden are:

  • persistent or intermittent pain lasting ≥3 months
  • pain affecting daily activities to a large extent,
  • completed systematic assessment and non-pharmacological optimization is completed,
  • screening for psychosocial risk factors and differential diagnosis completed

In addition the following criteria will be applied:

  • Completed participation in an Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Program (IPRP) at any of the participating units.
  • Having an employment to return to after IPRP or having returned to work but need continued support for creating a sustainable work situation after IPRP.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria:

  • Completed IPRP but are unemployed or unable to return to work.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
360 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    SWEPPE

    Participants will receive the smartphone application SWEPPE.

    Device: SWEPPE

  • No intervention
    Control

    Participants randomized to the control group will not receive any active intervention for return to work after completing an Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Program .

Interventions

  • DeviceSWEPPE

    In the smartphone application SWEPPE the individual can create an action plan, perform daily registrations of health aspects, self-monitoring of health aspects and goals, have access to a library with evidence-based facts and a coach, and possibility to share information with the employer.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Sick leave

    Number of gross and net days with sickness cash benefit

    Time frame: 12 months follow up after IPRP

Secondary outcomes

  1. Return to work

    Return to work (partially or full time) every month

    Time frame: 12 months follow up after IPRP

  2. Sick-leave spells per months

    Number of sick-leave spells (per month)

    Time frame: 12 months follow up after IPRP

  3. Return to work group level

    Proportions of a group who returns to full- or part-time work (per month)

    Time frame: 12 months follow up after IPRP

  4. Working days before new sick leave

    Number of days in work before new sick leave during study period

    Time frame: 12 months follow up after IPRP

  5. Proportion back to work

    Proportion of a group back to work \>28 days (full- or part time) before a new sick-leave spell occurs

    Time frame: 12 months follow up after IPRP

  6. Total sick-leave spells

    Number of sick-leave spells during study period

    Time frame: 12 months follow up after IPRP

  7. Length of total sick leave

    Length of total sick leave during study period

    Time frame: 12 months follow up after IPRP

  8. Pain intensity last 7 days

    Numeric rating scale

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  9. Consequences of pain on daily life

    Multidimensional Pain Inventory Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  10. Overall emotional distress

    Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  11. Physical and mental health

    RAND-36 Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  12. Goal fulfilment and satisfaction during the study period

    Self-reported data

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  13. Self-reported physical work environment

    Questionnaire based on the Swedish Work Environment Authority ergonomics checklist

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

Other outcomes

  1. Self-reported fatigue the last 7 days

    Numeric rating scale

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  2. Self-reported level of sleepiness

    Karolinska Sleepiness Scale Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  3. Self-reported level of sleep disturbance

    Insomnia Severity Index Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  4. Self-reported fear of movement

    Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  5. Self-reported physical activity

    the National Board of Health and Welfare's three questions on physical activity, exercise, and sedentary behavior.

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  6. Pain catastrophizing

    Pain Catastrophizing scale Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  7. Perceived work ability

    Work Ability Index Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  8. Self-reported demands, control, and support at the workplace

    Demand Control Support Questionnaire Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  9. Perceived life Satisfaction

    Life satisfaction Scale Swedish version

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  10. Self-reported work situation during the study period

    Barriers for return to work, strategies to handle barriers and need of support from the employer

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

  11. Self-reported workload an average day

    Number of hours per day for paid work and unpaid household work

    Time frame: Baseline and 12 months

07

Study locations

2 of 5 sites recruiting
  • Danderyd hospital
    Danderyd, 182 57, Sweden
    Recruiting
  • Smärtcentrum
    Karlstad, Sweden
    Not yet recruiting
  • County council of Ostergotland
    Linköping, 581 83, Sweden
    Recruiting
  • Smärtcentrum
    Lund, Sweden
    Not yet recruiting
  • Spine Center
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Not yet recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Harker J, Reid KJ, Bekkering GE, Kellen E, Bala MM, Riemsma R, Worthy G, Misso K, Kleijnen J. Epidemiology of chronic pain in denmark and sweden. Pain Res Treat. 2012;2012:371248. doi: 10.1155/2012/371248. Epub 2012 May 23. PubMed 22693667 ↗
  • Reid KJ, Harker J, Bala MM, Truyers C, Kellen E, Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J. Epidemiology of chronic non-cancer pain in Europe: narrative review of prevalence, pain treatments and pain impact. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011 Feb;27(2):449-62. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.545813. Epub 2011 Jan 3. PubMed 21194394 ↗
  • Perez C, Margarit C, Sanchez-Magro I, de Antonio A, Villoria J. Chronic Pain Features Relate to Quality of Life More than Physiopathology: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation in Pain Clinics. Pain Pract. 2017 Sep;17(7):866-878. doi: 10.1111/papr.12533. Epub 2017 Feb 25. PubMed 27782366 ↗
  • Gerdle B, Bjork J, Henriksson C, Bengtsson A. Prevalence of current and chronic pain and their influences upon work and healthcare-seeking: a population study. J Rheumatol. 2004 Jul;31(7):1399-406. PubMed 15229963 ↗
  • Caceres-Matos R, Gil-Garcia E, Barrientos-Trigo S, Porcel-Galvez AM, Cabrera-Leon A. Consequences of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in adulthood. Scoping Review. Rev Saude Publica. 2020 Apr 17;54:39. doi: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054001675. eCollection 2020. PubMed 32321056 ↗
  • Asmundson GJ, Katz J. Understanding the co-occurrence of anxiety disorders and chronic pain: state-of-the-art. Depress Anxiety. 2009;26(10):888-901. doi: 10.1002/da.20600. PubMed 19691031 ↗
  • Shupler MS, Kramer JK, Cragg JJ, Jutzeler CR, Whitehurst DGT. Pan-Canadian Estimates of Chronic Pain Prevalence From 2000 to 2014: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis. J Pain. 2019 May;20(5):557-565. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.10.010. Epub 2018 Nov 29. PubMed 30503860 ↗
  • Svanholm F, Liedberg GM, Lofgren M, Bjork M. Factors of importance for return to work, experienced by patients with chronic pain that have completed a multimodal rehabilitation program - a focus group study. Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Mar;44(5):736-744. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1780479. Epub 2020 Jun 25. PubMed 32580604 ↗
  • Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, Briggs M, Carr E, Barker K. A synthesis of qualitative research exploring the barriers to staying in work with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(6):566-72. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1049377. PubMed 26017361 ↗
  • Liedberg GM, Bjork M, Dragioti E, Turesson C. Qualitative Evidence from Studies of Interventions Aimed at Return to Work and Staying at Work for Persons with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain. J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 17;10(6):1247. doi: 10.3390/jcm10061247. PubMed 33802906 ↗
  • Saunders SL, Nedelec B. What work means to people with work disability: a scoping review. J Occup Rehabil. 2014 Mar;24(1):100-10. doi: 10.1007/s10926-013-9436-y. PubMed 23519737 ↗
  • Grant M, O-Beirne-Elliman J, Froud R, Underwood M, Seers K. The work of return to work. Challenges of returning to work when you have chronic pain: a meta-ethnography. BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 20;9(6):e025743. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025743. PubMed 31227529 ↗
  • Magalhães L, Chan C, Chapman A, Majed L, Samigullina R, Trninic D, et al. Successful return to work of individuals with chronic pain according to health care providers: a meta-synthesis. Cadernos Brasileiros de Terapia Ocupacional/Brazilian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2017;25(4):825-37
  • Cohen D, Allen J, Rhydderch M, Aylward M. The return to work discussion: a qualitative study of the line manager conversation about return to work and the development of an educational programme. J Rehabil Med. 2012 Jul;44(8):677-83. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0996. PubMed 22729796 ↗
  • Scott W, Chilcot J, Guildford B, Daly-Eichenhardt A, McCracken LM. Feasibility randomized-controlled trial of online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for patients with complex chronic pain in the United Kingdom. Eur J Pain. 2018 Apr 28. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1236. Online ahead of print. PubMed 29704880 ↗
  • Coutu MF, Legare F, Durand MJ, Stacey D, Labrecque ME, Corbiere M, Bainbridge L. Acceptability and Feasibility of a Shared Decision-Making Model in Work Rehabilitation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives. J Occup Rehabil. 2019 Mar;29(1):128-139. doi: 10.1007/s10926-018-9770-1. PubMed 29663111 ↗
  • Braillard O, Cedraschi C, Jesaimani A, Piguet V. [Chronic noncancer pain and patient education: a place for e-learning?]. Rev Med Suisse. 2015 Jun 24;11(480):1400, 1402-5. French. PubMed 26267947 ↗
  • Ledel Solem IK, Varsi C, Eide H, Kristjansdottir OB, Borosund E, Schreurs KMG, Waxenberg LB, Weiss KE, Morrison EJ, Haaland-Overby M, Bevan K, Zangi HA, Stubhaug A, Solberg Nes L. A User-Centered Approach to an Evidence-Based Electronic Health Pain Management Intervention for People With Chronic Pain: Design and Development of EPIO. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jan 21;22(1):e15889. doi: 10.2196/15889. PubMed 31961331 ↗
  • Kristjansdottir OB, Fors EA, Eide E, Finset A, Stensrud TL, van Dulmen S, Wigers SH, Eide H. A smartphone-based intervention with diaries and therapist feedback to reduce catastrophizing and increase functioning in women with chronic widespread pain. part 2: 11-month follow-up results of a randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Mar 28;15(3):e72. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2442. PubMed 23538392 ↗
  • Thurnheer SE, Gravestock I, Pichierri G, Steurer J, Burgstaller JM. Benefits of Mobile Apps in Pain Management: Systematic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Oct 22;6(10):e11231. doi: 10.2196/11231. PubMed 30348633 ↗
  • Garg S, Garg D, Turin TC, Chowdhury MF. Web-Based Interventions for Chronic Back Pain: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jul 26;18(7):e139. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4932. PubMed 27460413 ↗
  • Slattery BW, Haugh S, O'Connor L, Francis K, Dwyer CP, O'Higgins S, Egan J, McGuire BE. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Modalities Used to Deliver Electronic Health Interventions for Chronic Pain: Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jul 17;21(7):e11086. doi: 10.2196/11086. PubMed 31317869 ↗
  • Ledel Solem IK, Varsi C, Eide H, Kristjansdottir OB, Mirkovic J, Borosund E, Haaland-Overby M, Heldal K, Schreurs KM, Waxenberg LB, Weiss KE, Morrison EJ, Solberg Nes L. Patients' Needs and Requirements for eHealth Pain Management Interventions: Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Apr 1;21(4):e13205. doi: 10.2196/13205. PubMed 30877780 ↗
  • Timmers T, Janssen L, Kool RB, Kremer JA. Educating Patients by Providing Timely Information Using Smartphone and Tablet Apps: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 13;22(4):e17342. doi: 10.2196/17342. PubMed 32281936 ↗
  • Granja C, Janssen W, Johansen MA. Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature. J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 1;20(5):e10235. doi: 10.2196/10235. PubMed 29716883 ↗
  • Devan H, Hale L, Hempel D, Saipe B, Perry MA. What Works and Does Not Work in a Self-Management Intervention for People With Chronic Pain? Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis. Phys Ther. 2018 May 1;98(5):381-397. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzy029. PubMed 29669089 ↗
  • Devan H, Farmery D, Peebles L, Grainger R. Evaluation of Self-Management Support Functions in Apps for People With Persistent Pain: Systematic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Feb 12;7(2):e13080. doi: 10.2196/13080. PubMed 30747715 ↗
  • Ruckenstein M. Visualized and interacted life: personal analytics and engagement with data doubles. Societies. 2014;4:68-84. doi: 10.3390/soc4010068.
  • Mamykina L, Smaldone AM, Bakken SR. Adopting the sensemaking perspective for chronic disease self-management. J Biomed Inform. 2015 Aug;56:406-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.06.006. Epub 2015 Jun 10. PubMed 26071681 ↗
  • Morton K, Dennison L, May C, Murray E, Little P, McManus RJ, Yardley L. Using digital interventions for self-management of chronic physical health conditions: A meta-ethnography review of published studies. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Apr;100(4):616-635. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.019. Epub 2016 Oct 20. PubMed 28029572 ↗
  • Machado GC, Pinheiro MB, Lee H, Ahmed OH, Hendrick P, Williams C, Kamper SJ. Smartphone apps for the self-management of low back pain: A systematic review. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Dec;30(6):1098-1109. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2017.04.002. Epub 2017 May 25. PubMed 29103552 ↗
  • Coe-O'Brien R, Joseph L, Kuisma R, Paungmali A, Sitilertpisan P, Pirunsan U. Outcome measures used in the smartphone applications for the management of low back pain: a systematic scoping review. Health Inf Sci Syst. 2020 Jan 2;8(1):5. doi: 10.1007/s13755-019-0097-x. eCollection 2020 Dec. PubMed 31938540 ↗
  • Turesson C, Liedberg G, Vixner L, Lofgren M, Bjork M. Evidence-based digital support during 1 year after an Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programme for persons with chronic musculoskeletal pain to facilitate a sustainable return to work: a study protocol for a registry-based multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 25;12(4):e060452. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060452. PubMed 35470201 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Mar 2022 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Dec 2023, 21 months after the start.

Of 1,209 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Chronic Pain, half reached primary completion within 21 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 9 and three quarters within 39. This study's planned 21 months is close to that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 1,296 studies reached it within 21 months; a quarter within 9 and three quarters within 39.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Sep 24, 2021
First posted
Sep 27, 2021
StartActual
Mar 1, 2022
Primary completionEst.
Dec 2023
CompletionEst.
Dec 2024
Last update
Mar 25, 2022
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 25, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05058547
Collaborators
Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
Responsible party
Mathilda Björk (Deputy Head of Department, Professor, Linkoeping University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Sep 27, 2021
Start date
Mar 1, 2022
Primary completion
Dec 2023 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 2024 (estimated)
Last update
Mar 25, 2022

Study contacts

Mathilda Björk, PhD
Contact
mathilda.bjork@liu.se
+4611363531
Mathilda Björk, PhD
principal investigator · Linkoeping University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Mar 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion