Suppr超能文献

亚急性下背痛的小型干预措施:两年随访及疗效影响因素

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

作者信息

Karjalainen Kaija, Malmivaara Antti, Mutanen Pertti, Roine Risto, Hurri Heikki, Pohjolainen Timo

机构信息

Department of Occupational Medicine, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.

出版信息

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 May 15;29(10):1069-76. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200405150-00004.

Abstract

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.

摘要

研究设计

随机对照试验。

目的

研究在常规护理基础上增加的一项小型干预措施的长期有效性、成本及效应修饰因素,以及对亚急性致残性下腰痛(LBP)患者进行工作场所访视的增量效应。

背景数据总结

一项小型干预措施早前被证明是治疗亚急性LBP的有效方法。其有益效果是否能持续尚不清楚。此外,治疗效果的修饰因素在很大程度上也未知。

方法

总共164例亚急性LBP患者被随机分为小型干预组(A组,n = 56)、小型干预加工作场所访视组(B组,n = 51)或常规护理组(C组,n = 57)。小型干预包括由一名医生和一名物理治疗师对患者的病史、信念及体格检查结果进行详细评估,随后给出建议。常规护理组患者接受传统护理。在24个月的随访期间,测量疼痛、残疾、健康相关生活质量、护理满意度、病假天数以及医疗保健消耗和成本。对每个结局测试了13个候选修饰因素。

结果

三个治疗组在疼痛强度、感知残疾程度或健康相关生活质量方面没有差异。然而,小型干预降低了日常疼痛(A组与C组比较,P = 0.01)和困扰性疼痛(A组与C组比较,P < 0.05)的发生率,并提高了治疗满意度。干预组(A组4670欧元,B组5990欧元)因LBP产生的成本低于C组(C组9510欧元)(A组与C组比较,P = 0.04;B组与C组比较,无显著性差异)。A组的平均病假天数为30天,B组为45天,C组为62天(A组与C组比较,P = 0.03;B组与C组比较,无显著性差异)。感知的无法康复风险是治疗效果最强的修饰因素。A组和B组的脑力和脑力 - 体力劳动者病假天数少于C组。

结论

小型干预是治疗亚急性LBP的有效方法。尽管对下腰痛强度和感知残疾程度没有显著影响,但根据“积极方法”进行的小型干预,包括适当的建议,能够降低与LBP相关的成本。感知的无法康复风险是治疗效果最强的修饰因素。在缓解疼痛方面,该干预对感知无法康复风险高的患者最有效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验