首页> 外文期刊>Spine >Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: two-year follow-up and modifiers of effectiveness.
【24h】

Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: two-year follow-up and modifiers of effectiveness.

机译:亚急性下腰痛的迷你干预:两年的随访和有效性的改善。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To Investigate the long-term effectiveness, costs, and effect modifiers of a mini-intervention, provided in addition to the usual care, and the incremental effect of a worksite visit for patients with subacute disabling low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A mini-intervention was earlier proved to be an effective treatment for subacute LBP. Whether the beneficial effect is sustained is not known. Furthermore, modifiers of a treatment effect are largely unknown. METHODS: A total of 164 patients with subacute LBP randomized into a mini-intervention (A, n = 56), a mini-intervention plus a worksite visit (B, n = 51), or the usual care (C, n = 57). Mini-intervention consisted of a detailed assessment of the patients' history, beliefs, and physical findings by a physician and a physiotherapist, followed by recommendations and advice. The usual care patients received the conventional care. Pain, disability, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, days on sick leave, and health care consumption and costs were measured during a 24-month follow-up. Thirteen candidate modifiers were tested for each outcome. RESULTS: There were no differences between the three treatment arms regarding the intensity of pain, the perceived disability, or the health-related quality of life. However, mini-intervention decreased occurrence of daily (A vs., C, P = 0.01) and bothersome (A vs. C, P < 0.05) pain and increased treatment satisfaction. Costs resulting from LBP were lower in the intervention groups (A 4670 Euros, B 5990 Euros) than in C (C 9510 Euros) (A vs. C, P = 0.04; and B vs. C, not significant). The average number of days on sick leave was 30 in A, 45 in B, and 62 in C (A vs. C, P = 0.03; B vs. C, not significant). The perceived risk for not recovering was the strongest modifier of treatment effect. Mental and mental-physical workers in A and B were less often on sick leave than those in C. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-intervention is an effective treatment for subacute LBP. Despite lack of a significant effect on intensity of low back pain and perceived disability, mini-intervention, including proper recommendations and advice, according to the "active approach," is able to reduce LBP-related costs. The perceived risk of not recovering was the strongest modifier of treatment effect. In alleviating pain, the intervention was most effective among the patients with a high perceived risk of not recovering.
机译:研究设计:随机对照试验。目的:研究除常规护理外提供的小型干预的长期效果,成本和效果调节剂,以及亚急性残疾下腰痛(LBP)患者进行现场就诊的增量效果。背景数据摘要:早期干预已被证明是治疗亚急性LBP的有效方法。尚不清楚是否持续产生有益效果。此外,治疗效果的调节剂在很大程度上是未知的。方法:总共164例亚急性LBP患者随机分为迷你干预(A,n = 56),迷你干预加上现场就诊(B,n = 51)或常规护理(C,n = 57)。 )。小型干预包括由医生和物理治疗师对患者的病史,信仰和体格检查结果进行详细评估,然后提供建议和建议。常规护理患者接受常规护理。在24个月的随访中,对疼痛,残疾,与健康相关的生活质量,对护理的满意度,病假天数以及医疗保健消耗和费用进行了测量。每个结果测试了十三种候选修饰语。结果:三个治疗组在疼痛强度,感觉到的残疾或与健康相关的生活质量方面没有差异。然而,微干预减少了每日(A vs. C,P = 0.01)和烦扰(A vs. C,P <0.05)疼痛的发生,并提高了治疗满意度。在干预组中LBP产生的成本较低(A 4670欧元,B 5990欧元),比C组(C 9510欧元)要低(A vs. C,P = 0.04; B vs. C,不显着)。病假的平均天数在A中为30天,在B中为45天,在C中为62天(A vs. C,P = 0.03; B vs. C,不显着)。认为无法恢复的风险是治疗效果的最强调节剂。 A和B的心理和精神物理工作者休假的频率比C的少。结论:小型干预是治疗亚急性LBP的有效方法。尽管对下腰痛和感觉到的残疾强度没有显着影响,但根据“积极方法”,进行小规模干预,包括适当的建议和咨询,仍可降低与LBP相关的费用。感觉不到恢复的风险是治疗效果的最强调节剂。在减轻疼痛方面,干预措施在感觉到无法康复的高风险患者中最为有效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号