UNASSIGNED: There is considerable diversity of outcome selections and methodologies for handling the multiple outcomes across all systematic reviews (SRs) of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment (IPT) due to the complexity. This diversity presents difficulties for healthcare decision makers. Better recommendations about how to select outcomes in SRs (with or without meta-analysis) are needed to explicitly demonstrate the effectiveness of IPT.
UNASSIGNED: This overview systematically collates the reported outcomes and measurements of IPT across published SRs and identifies the methodological characteristics. Additionally, we provide some suggestions on framing the selection of outcomes and on conducting SRs of IPT.
UNASSIGNED: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos) and the PROSPERO registry for ongoing SR were supplemented with hand-searching ending on 30 September 2021.
UNASSIGNED: We included 18 SRs with data on 49007 people from 356 primary randomised controlled trials (RCTs); eight were followed by meta-analysis and ten used narrative syntheses of data. For all the SRs, pain was the most common reported outcome (72%), followed by disability/functional status (61%) and working status (61%). Psychological well-being and quality of life were also reported in half of the included SR (50%). The core outcome domains according to VAPAIN, IMMPACT, and PROMIS were seldom met. The methodological quality varied from critically low to moderate according to AMSTAR2. The AMSTAR2 rating was negatively correlated to the number of outcome domains in PROMIS, and VAPAIN was positively correlated with IMMPACT and PROMIS, indicating the intercorrelations between the reported outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic overview showed wide-ranging disparity in reported outcomes and applied outcome domains in SRs evaluating IPT interventions for chronic pain conditions. The intercorrelations between the reported outcomes should be appropriately handled in future research. Some approaches are discussed as well.

Intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment (IIPT) involves multiple stakeholders. Mapping the program components to its anticipated outcomes (ie, its theory) can be difficult and requires stakeholder engagement. Evidence is lacking, however, on how best to engage them. Logic analysis, a theory-based evaluation, that tests the coherence of a program theory using scientific evidence and experiential knowledge may hold some promise. Its use is rare in pediatric pain interventions, and few methodological details are available. This article provides a description of a collaborative logic analysis methodology used to test the theoretical plausibility of an IIPT designed for youth with pain-related disability. A 3-step direct logic analysis process was used. A 13-member expert panel, composed of clinicians, teachers, managers, youth with pain-related disability, and their parents, were engaged in each step. First, a logic model was constructed through document analysis, expert panel surveys, and focus-group discussions. Then, a scoping review, focused on pediatric self-management, building self-efficacy, and fostering participation, helped create a conceptual framework. An examination of the logic model against the conceptual framework by the expert panel followed, and recommendations were formulated. Overall, the collaborative logic analysis process helped raiseawareness of clinicians\' assumptions about the program causal mechanisms, identified program components most valued by youth and their parents, recognized the program features supported by scientific and experiential knowledge, detected gaps, and highlighted emerging trends. In addition to providing a consumer-focused program evaluation option, collaborative logic analysis methodology holds promise as a strategy to engage stakeholders and to translate pediatric pain rehabilitation evaluation research knowledge to key stakeholders.