Moffett J Klaber, Jackson D A, Gardiner E D, Torgerson D J, Coulton S, Eaton S, Mooney M P, Pickering C, Green A J, Walker L G, May S, Young S
Deputy Director, Institute of Rehabilitation, 215, Anlaby Road, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 Dec;45(12):1514-21. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kel339. Epub 2006 Oct 24.
Interventions that take psychosocial factors into account are recommended for patients with persistent back or neck pain. We compared the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy pain management approach using cognitive-behavioural principles (Solution-Finding Approach-SFA) with a commonly used method of physical therapy (McKenzie Approach-McK).
Eligible patients referred by GPs to physiotherapy departments with neck or back pain lasting at least 2 weeks were randomized to McK (n= 161) or to SFA (n= 154). They were further randomized to receive an educational booklet or not. The primary outcome was the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) (Activity-Avoidance scale used as a proxy for coping) at 6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months.
Of 649 patients assessed for eligibility, 315 were recruited (219 with back pain, 96 with neck pain). There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between the groups, except that at any time point SFA patients supported by a booklet reported less reliance on health professionals (Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Powerful Others Scale), while at 6 months McK patients showed slightly more improvement on activity-avoidance (TSK). At 6 weeks, patient satisfaction was greater for McK (median 90% compared with 70% for SFA). Both interventions resulted in modest but clinically important improvements over time on the Roland Disability Questionnaire Scores and Northwick Park Neck Pain Scores.
The McK approach resulted in higher patient satisfaction overall but the SFA could be more cost-effective, as fewer (three vs four) sessions were needed.
对于患有持续性背痛或颈痛的患者,建议采取考虑心理社会因素的干预措施。我们比较了一种采用认知行为原则的简短物理治疗疼痛管理方法(解决问题法-SFA)与一种常用的物理治疗方法(麦肯齐法-McK)的有效性。
由全科医生转介至物理治疗科、患有持续至少2周的颈痛或背痛的符合条件的患者被随机分为McK组(n = 161)或SFA组(n = 154)。他们进一步被随机分为是否接受一本教育手册。主要结局指标是6周、6个月和12个月时的坦帕运动恐惧量表(TSK)(用活动回避量表作为应对的替代指标)。
在649名接受资格评估的患者中,315名被招募(219名背痛患者,96名颈痛患者)。两组之间的结局没有统计学上的显著差异,只是在任何时间点,得到手册支持的SFA组患者报告对医疗专业人员的依赖较少(多维健康控制点-强大他人量表),而在6个月时,McK组患者在活动回避方面(TSK)显示出略有更多改善。在6周时,McK组患者的满意度更高(中位数为90%,而SFA组为70%)。随着时间推移,两种干预措施在罗兰残疾问卷评分和诺斯威克公园颈痛评分方面均带来了适度但具有临床意义的改善。
McK方法总体上导致患者满意度更高,但SFA可能更具成本效益,因为所需疗程更少(3次对4次)。