This study aimed to assess the relative impact of the Osijek multidisciplinary biopsychosocial program for chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared with standard multimodal care with respect to pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life, anxiety, depression, stress, and sleep quality using standardized self-assessment questionnaires and a smartwatch. A total of 128 patients treated at the Department of Pain Management, University Hospital Osijek, were randomly allocated to two groups. The multidisciplinary biopsychosocial group participated in a structured four-week program combining education, exercise, and individualized multidisciplinary care, while the multimodal group received conventional conservative treatment including pharmacotherapy and selected physical therapy modalities. The four-week intervention included standardized self-report questionnaires, a sociodemographic data form, and a Fitbit Charge 3 smartwatch for objective monitoring of sleep and physical activity. A significant reduction in pain intensity was observed across numerical scales and most questionnaire measures (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.01), except for the subscale assessing difficulties in performing daily activities due to sleep deprivation. Participants who underwent the multidisciplinary biopsychosocial treatment exhibited significant improvements (p < 0.03) in pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life, stress, anxiety, and sleep quality compared with those receiving multimodal treatment. In both groups, a weak negative correlation was found between sleep quality and daily step count (Spearman’s rho = −0.234, p = 0.04). A multidisciplinary biopsychosocial program was associated with greater improvements in health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, and sleep quality in patients with chronic low back pain compared with a multimodal conservative approach. Increased daily physical activity was linked to improvements in anxiety and sleep. Although this study was designed as a randomized controlled trial, certain baseline differences between groups should be considered when interpreting the findings.
Hnatešen et al. (Wed,) studied this question.