Karjalainen Kaija, Malmivaara Antti, Pohjolainen Timo, Hurri Heikki, Mutanen Pertti, Rissanen Pekka, Pahkajärvi Helena, Levon Heikki, Karpoff Hanna, Roine Risto
Department of Occupational Medicine, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Mar 15;28(6):533-40; discussion 540-1. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000049928.52520.69.
Randomized controlled trial.
To investigate the effectiveness and costs of a mini-intervention, provided in addition to the usual care, and the incremental effect of a work site visit for patients with subacute disabling low back pain.
There is lack of data on cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for patients with prolonged low back pain.
A total of 164 patients with subacute low back pain were randomized to a mini-intervention group (A), a work site visit group (B), or a usual care group (C). Groups A (n = 56) and B (n = 51) underwent one assessment by a physician plus a physiotherapist. Group B received a work site visit in addition. Group C served as controls (n = 57) and was treated in municipal primary health care. All patients received a leaflet on back pain. Pain, disability, specific and generic health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, days on sick leave, and use and costs of health care consumption were measured at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups.
During follow-up, fewer subjects had daily pain in Groups A and B than in Group C (Group A Group C, = 0.002; Group B Group C, = 0.030). In Group A, pain was less bothersome (Group A Group C, = 0.032) and interfered less with daily life (Group A Group C, = 0.040) than among controls. Average days on sick leave were 19 in Group A, 28 in Group B, and 41 in Group C (Group A Group C, = 0.019). Treatment satisfaction was better in the intervention groups than among the controls, and costs were lowest in the mini-intervention group.
Mini-intervention reduced daily back pain symptoms and sickness absence, improved adaptation to pain and patient satisfaction among patients with subacute low back pain, without increasing health care costs. A work site visit did not increase effectiveness.
随机对照试验。
研究在常规护理基础上提供的小型干预措施的有效性和成本,以及对亚急性致残性腰痛患者进行工作场所探访的增量效果。
缺乏关于对长期腰痛患者进行简短干预措施的成本效益的数据。
总共164例亚急性腰痛患者被随机分为小型干预组(A组)、工作场所探访组(B组)或常规护理组(C组)。A组(n = 56)和B组(n = 51)由一名医生和一名物理治疗师进行一次评估。B组还接受一次工作场所探访。C组作为对照组(n = 57),在市政初级卫生保健机构接受治疗。所有患者都收到一份关于背痛的宣传册。在3个月、6个月和12个月的随访中,测量疼痛、残疾程度、特定和一般健康相关生活质量、对护理的满意度、病假天数以及医疗保健消费的使用情况和成本。
在随访期间,A组和B组中每日疼痛的受试者少于C组(A组与C组比较,P = 0.002;B组与C组比较,P = 0.030)。在A组中,疼痛比对照组更不困扰人(A组与C组比较,P = 0.032),对日常生活的干扰也更少(A组与C组比较,P = 0.040)。A组平均病假天数为19天,B组为28天,C组为41天(A组与C组比较,P = 0.019)。干预组的治疗满意度高于对照组,小型干预组的成本最低。
小型干预减少了亚急性腰痛患者的每日背痛症状和病假天数,改善了对疼痛的适应和患者满意度,且未增加医疗保健成本。工作场所探访并未提高有效性。