Gross Anita, Forget Mario, St George Kerry, Fraser Michelle M H, Graham Nadine, Perry Lenora, Burnie Stephen J, Goldsmith Charles H, Haines Ted, Brunarski David
School of Rehabilitation Science&Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;2012(3):CD005106. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005106.pub4.
Neck disorders are common, disabling, and costly. The effectiveness of patient education strategies is unclear.
To assess the short- to long-term effects of therapeutic patient education (TPE) strategies on pain, function, disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, patient satisfaction, knowledge transfer, or behaviour change in adults with neck pain associated with whiplash or non-specific and specific mechanical neck pain with or without radiculopathy or cervicogenic headache.
We searched computerised bibliographic databases (inception to 11 July 2010).
Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating the effectiveness of TPE for acute to chronic neck pain.
Paired independent review authors conducted selection, data abstraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD). Heterogeneity was assessed; no studies were pooled.
Of the 15 selected trials, three were rated low risk of bias. Three TPE themes emerged.Advice focusing on activation: There is moderate quality evidence (one trial, 348 participants) that an educational video of advice focusing on activation was more beneficial for acute whiplash-related pain when compared with no treatment at intermediate-term [RR 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.06)] but not long-term follow-up [0.89 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.21)]. There is low quality evidence (one trial, 102 participants) that a whiplash pamphlet on advice focusing on activation is less beneficial for pain reduction, or no different in improving function and global perceived improvement from generic information given out in emergency care (control) for acute whiplash at short- or intermediate-term follow-up. Low to very low quality evidence (nine trials using diverse educational approaches) showed either no evidence of benefit or difference for varied outcomes. Advice focusing on pain & stress coping skills and workplace ergonomics: Very low quality evidence (three trials, 243 participants) favoured other treatment or showed no difference spanning numerous follow-up periods and disorder subtypes. Low quality evidence (one trial, 192 participants) favoured specific exercise training for chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.Self-care strategies: Very low quality evidence (one trial, 58 participants) indicated that self-care strategies did not relieve pain for acute to chronic neck pain at short-term follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of one trial, this review has not shown effectiveness for educational interventions, including advice to activate, advice on stress-coping skills, workplace ergonomics and self-care strategies. Future research should be founded on sound adult learning theory and learning skill acquisition.
颈部疾病常见、致残且代价高昂。患者教育策略的有效性尚不清楚。
评估治疗性患者教育(TPE)策略对伴有挥鞭样损伤相关颈部疼痛或非特异性及特异性机械性颈部疼痛(伴或不伴神经根病或颈源性头痛)的成年人的疼痛、功能、残疾、生活质量、总体感知效果、患者满意度、知识传授或行为改变的短期至长期影响。
我们检索了计算机化书目数据库(起始至2010年7月11日)。
符合条件的研究为随机对照试验(RCT),调查TPE对急性至慢性颈部疼痛的有效性。
由两名独立的综述作者进行筛选、数据提取和“偏倚风险”评估。我们计算了风险比(RR)和标准化均数差(SMD)。评估了异质性;未合并研究。
在15项入选试验中,3项被评为低偏倚风险。出现了3个TPE主题。侧重于激活的建议:有中等质量证据(1项试验,348名参与者)表明,与中期不治疗相比,侧重于激活的建议的教育视频对急性挥鞭样损伤相关疼痛更有益[RR 0.79(95%置信区间(CI)0.59至1.06)],但长期随访时并非如此[0.89(95%CI,0.65至1.21)]。有低质量证据(1项试验,102名参与者)表明,一份侧重于激活的挥鞭样损伤宣传册对减轻疼痛的益处较小,或在短期或中期随访时,在改善功能和总体感知改善方面与急诊护理中提供的一般信息(对照)没有差异。低至极低质量证据(9项使用不同教育方法的试验)显示,对于各种结果要么没有益处证据,要么没有差异。侧重于疼痛和压力应对技能以及工作场所工效学的建议:极低质量证据(3项试验,243名参与者)支持其他治疗或在多个随访期和疾病亚型中均无差异。低质量证据(1项试验,192名参与者)支持在短期随访时对慢性颈部疼痛进行特定运动训练。自我护理策略:极低质量证据(1项试验,58名参与者)表明,自我护理策略在短期随访时对急性至慢性颈部疼痛不能缓解疼痛。
除1项试验外,本综述未显示教育干预措施有效,包括激活建议、压力应对技能建议、工作场所工效学和自我护理策略。未来的研究应以完善的成人学习理论和学习技能获取为基础。