Suppr超能文献

两种指南实施策略对初级保健中患者结局的影响:一项整群随机对照试验

Effects of two guideline implementation strategies on patient outcomes in primary care: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Becker Annette, Leonhardt Corinna, Kochen Michael M, Keller Stefan, Wegscheider Karl, Baum Erika, Donner-Banzhoff Norbert, Pfingsten Michael, Hildebrandt Jan, Basler Heinz-Dieter, Chenot Jean F

机构信息

Department of General Practice, Preventive and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

出版信息

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Mar 1;33(5):473-80. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181657e0d.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To improve quality of care for patients with low back pain (LBP) a multifaceted general practitioner education alone and in combination with motivational counseling by practice nurses has been implemented in German general practices. We studied effects on functional capacity (main outcome), days in pain, physical activity, quality of life, or days of sick leave (secondary outcomes) compared with no intervention.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

International research has lead to the development of the German LBP guideline for general practitioners. However, there is still doubt about the most effective implementation strategy. Although effects on process of care have been observed frequently, changes in patient outcomes are rarely seen.

METHODS

We recruited 1378 patients with LBP in 118 general practices, which were randomized to 1 of 3 study arms: a multifaceted guideline implementation (GI), GI plus training of practice nurses in motivational counseling (MC), and the postal dissemination of the guideline (controls, C). Data were collected (questionnaires and patient interviews) at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Multilevel mixed effects modeling was used to adjust for clustering of data and potential confounders.

RESULTS

After 6 months, functional capacity was higher in the intervention groups with a cluster adjusted mean difference of 3.650 between the MC group and controls (95% CI = 0.320-6.979, P = 0.032) and 2.652 between the GI group and controls (95% CI = -0.704 to 6.007, P = 0.120). Intervention effects were more pronounced regarding days in pain per year with an average reduction of 16 (GI) to 17 days (MC) after 6 months (12 and 9 days after 12 months) compared with controls.

CONCLUSION

Active implementation of the German LBP guideline results in slightly better outcomes during 6 months follow-up than its postal dissemination. Results are more distinct when practice nurses are trained in motivational counseling.

摘要

研究设计

整群随机对照试验。

目的

为提高腰痛(LBP)患者的护理质量,德国全科医疗实践中实施了多方面的全科医生教育,以及与执业护士进行动机性咨询相结合的措施。我们研究了与无干预相比,其对功能能力(主要结局)、疼痛天数、身体活动、生活质量或病假天数(次要结局)的影响。

背景数据总结

国际研究促成了德国针对全科医生的腰痛指南的制定。然而,对于最有效的实施策略仍存在疑问。尽管经常观察到对护理过程的影响,但患者结局的变化却很少见。

方法

我们在118家全科医疗实践机构中招募了1378名腰痛患者,将其随机分为3个研究组之一:多方面指南实施组(GI)、GI加执业护士动机性咨询培训组(MC)以及指南邮寄发放组(对照组,C)。在基线以及6个月和12个月后收集数据(问卷调查和患者访谈)。采用多水平混合效应模型对数据聚类和潜在混杂因素进行调整。

结果

6个月后,干预组的功能能力更高,MC组与对照组之间的整群调整平均差异为3.650(95%可信区间=0.320 - 6.979,P = 0.032),GI组与对照组之间为2.652(95%可信区间=-0.704至6.007,P = 0.120)。与对照组相比,干预措施对每年疼痛天数的影响更为显著,6个月后平均减少16天(GI组)至17天(MC组)(12个月后分别为12天和9天)。

结论

积极实施德国腰痛指南在6个月随访期间的结局略优于指南邮寄发放。当执业护士接受动机性咨询培训时,结果更为明显。

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