van der Windt Daniëlle, Hay Elaine, Jellema Petra, Main Chris
Primary Care Musculoskeletal Research Centre, Keele University, United Kingdom.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jan 1;33(1):81-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e39f9.
Workshop discussion and literature overview.
To give an overview of the main lessons learnt from recent trials on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for back pain in primary care.
Recently, there has been a move to provide early psychosocial interventions in primary care to prevent chronic back pain. The results of most of the randomized trials, however, show only small differences between the psychosocial intervention and active control treatments in function or other outcome measures.
During Low Back Pain Forum 2006 in Amsterdam 3 subgroups debated possible explanations for these "negative" findings, focusing on (1) patient selection, (2) the intervention, or (3) assessment. These discussions were illustrated with evidence from the literature and with data from 2 randomized trials.
The workshop participants highlighted the importance of better targeting psychosocial interventions at those who are at high risk of chronic back pain, and are likely to respond to treatment. Interventions should focus on modifiable prognostic factors, and address somatic, psychological, and social aspects of the pain problem. The general consensus was that, depending on the complexity of the condition, primary care providers can be involved in the psychosocial management of back pain, but should be adequately trained. Competencies of care providers and adherence to treatment protocols should be investigated in a process evaluation. Finally, although trials have included relevant instruments to measure back pain and disability, patient assessment might be improved by measuring other factors that may mediate or modify the effects of treatment.
Despite the publication of recent "negative" results of psychosocial interventions for back pain, workshop participants remained optimistic about the importance of this line of research. Suggestions are given for a refocused research agenda on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for back pain in primary care.
研讨会讨论与文献综述。
概述从近期关于基层医疗中腰痛心理社会干预效果的试验中汲取的主要经验教训。
近来,人们倾向于在基层医疗中提供早期心理社会干预以预防慢性腰痛。然而,大多数随机试验结果显示,心理社会干预与积极对照治疗在功能或其他结局指标上仅有微小差异。
在2006年于阿姆斯特丹举办的腰痛论坛上,3个小组就这些“阴性”结果的可能解释展开辩论,重点关注(1)患者选择、(2)干预措施或(3)评估。这些讨论通过文献证据以及2项随机试验的数据进行说明。
研讨会参与者强调,心理社会干预应更好地针对慢性腰痛高危人群且可能对治疗有反应的人群。干预应聚焦于可改变的预后因素,并解决疼痛问题的躯体、心理和社会方面。普遍共识是,根据病情的复杂程度,基层医疗提供者可参与腰痛的心理社会管理,但应接受充分培训。在过程评估中应调查护理提供者的能力以及对治疗方案的依从性。最后,尽管试验已纳入测量腰痛和残疾的相关工具,但通过测量可能介导或改变治疗效果的其他因素,患者评估可能会得到改善。
尽管近期公布了心理社会干预腰痛的“阴性”结果,但研讨会参与者对这一研究方向的重要性仍持乐观态度。针对基层医疗中腰痛心理社会干预效果的研究议程重新聚焦提出了建议。