Jones Gareth T, Johnson Ruth E, Wiles Nicola J, Chaddock Carol, Potter Richard G, Roberts Chris, Symmons Deborah P M, Macfarlane Gary J
Epidemiology Group, Department of Public Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.
Br J Gen Pract. 2006 May;56(526):334-41.
Patients may adopt active and/or passive coping strategies in response to pain. However, it is not known whether these strategies may also precede the onset of chronic symptoms and, if so, whether they are independent predictors of prognosis.
To examine, in patients with low back pain in general practice, the prognostic value of active and passive coping styles, in the context of baseline levels of pain, disability and pain duration.
Prospective cohort study.
Nine general practices in north west England.
Patients consulting their GP with a new episode of low back pain were recruited to the study. Information on coping styles, pain severity, disability, duration, and a brief history of other chronic pain symptoms was recorded using a self-completion postal questionnaire. Participants were then sent a follow-up questionnaire, 3 months after their initial consultation, to assess the occurrence of low back pain. The primary outcome was persistent disabling low back pain, that is, low back pain at 3-month follow-up self-rated as >or=20 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, and >or=5 on the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire.
A total of 974 patients took part in the baseline survey, of whom 922 (95%) completed a follow-up questionnaire; 363 individuals (39%) reported persistent disabling pain at follow-up. Persons who reported high levels of passive coping experienced a threefold increase in the risk of persistent disabling low back pain (relative risk [RR] = 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.3 to 4.0). In contrast, active coping was associated with neither an increase nor a decrease in the risk of a poor prognosis. After adjusting for baseline pain severity, disability, and other measures of pain and pain history, persons who reported a high passive coping score were still at 50% increased risk of a poor outcome (RR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.1 to 2.0).
Patients who report passive coping strategies experience a significant increase in the risk of persistent symptoms. Further, this risk persists after controlling for initial pain severity and disability. The identification of this low back pain subgroup may help target future treatments to those at greatest risk of a poor outcome.
患者可能会采取主动和/或被动应对策略来应对疼痛。然而,尚不清楚这些策略是否也可能先于慢性症状出现,如果是,它们是否是预后的独立预测因素。
在基层医疗中患有腰痛的患者中,结合疼痛、残疾和疼痛持续时间的基线水平,研究主动和被动应对方式的预后价值。
前瞻性队列研究。
英格兰西北部的9家基层医疗诊所。
招募因新发腰痛前来咨询全科医生的患者参与研究。使用自我填写的邮政问卷记录有关应对方式、疼痛严重程度、残疾、持续时间以及其他慢性疼痛症状简要病史的信息。在初次咨询3个月后,向参与者发送一份随访问卷,以评估腰痛的发生情况。主要结局是持续性致残性腰痛,即在3个月随访时,在100毫米视觉模拟量表上自我评定为≥20毫米,且在罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷上评分为≥5分的腰痛。
共有974名患者参加了基线调查,其中922名(95%)完成了随访问卷;363人(39%)在随访时报告有持续性致残性疼痛。报告高水平被动应对的人持续性致残性腰痛风险增加了两倍(相对风险[RR]=3.0;95%置信区间[CI]=2.3至4.0)。相比之下,主动应对与预后不良风险的增加或降低均无关。在对基线疼痛严重程度、残疾以及其他疼痛和疼痛病史指标进行调整后,报告被动应对得分高的人预后不良风险仍增加50%(RR=1.5;95%CI=1.1至2.0)。
报告采用被动应对策略的患者出现持续性症状的风险显著增加。此外,在控制初始疼痛严重程度和残疾后,这种风险仍然存在。识别出这个腰痛亚组可能有助于将未来的治疗针对那些预后不良风险最高的患者。