Vonk Frieke, Pool Jan J M, Ostelo Raymond W J G, Verhagen Arianne P
Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Man Ther. 2009 Apr;14(2):131-7. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2007.12.005. Epub 2008 Apr 2.
Physiotherapists' treatment approach might influence their behaviour during practice and, consequently, patients' treatment outcome; however, an explicit description of the treatment approach is often missing in trials. The purpose of this prospective exploratory study was to evaluate whether the treatment approach differs between therapists who favour a behavioural graded activity (BGA) program, conservative exercise (CE) or manual therapy, and whether BGA training has influence on the treatment approach. Forty-two therapists participated. BGA therapists received a 2-day training. Treatment approach was measured at baseline and at 3-month follow-up, using the Pain Attitude and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PTs). By this method data on the adoption of biomedical or biopsychosocial approaches were generated. Differences were examined with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent Student's t-test. Influence of the BGA training was examined with linear regression. At baseline, there were no significant differences between BGA, CE or manual therapists use of biomedical or biopsychosocial approaches, but there was a trend for BGA therapists to score higher on the biopsychosocial approach. At follow-up, their biopsychosocial score remained higher and their biomedical score was lower compared to CE therapists. Corrected regression analysis showed a 4.4 points (95%CI -7.9; -0.8) higher decrease for therapists who followed the BGA training compared to therapists who did not. Our results indicate no significant differences in treatment approach at baseline, and that BGA training might influence therapists' treatment approach since the scores on the biomedical approach decreased.
物理治疗师的治疗方法可能会影响他们在实际操作中的行为,进而影响患者的治疗效果;然而,试验中往往缺少对治疗方法的明确描述。这项前瞻性探索性研究的目的是评估在倾向于行为分级活动(BGA)计划、保守运动(CE)或手法治疗的治疗师之间,治疗方法是否存在差异,以及BGA培训是否会对治疗方法产生影响。42名治疗师参与了研究。BGA治疗师接受了为期两天的培训。使用物理治疗师疼痛态度和信念量表(PABS-PTs)在基线和3个月随访时测量治疗方法。通过这种方法生成了关于采用生物医学或生物心理社会方法的数据。采用方差分析(ANOVA)和独立样本t检验来检验差异。使用线性回归分析BGA培训的影响。在基线时,BGA、CE或手法治疗师在使用生物医学或生物心理社会方法方面没有显著差异,但BGA治疗师在生物心理社会方法上的得分有更高的趋势。在随访时,与CE治疗师相比,他们的生物心理社会得分仍然更高,而生物医学得分更低。校正回归分析显示,接受BGA培训的治疗师比未接受培训的治疗师在生物医学方法上的得分下降幅度高4.4分(95%CI -7.9;-0.8)。我们的结果表明,基线时治疗方法没有显著差异,并且由于生物医学方法的得分下降,BGA培训可能会影响治疗师的治疗方法。