Deane Janet A, McGregor Alison H
MSK Lab, Imperial College London, London, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 15;6(9):e011075. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011075.
Despite lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) being significantly associated with non-specific low back pain and effective treatment remaining elusive, specialist multidisciplinary clinical stakeholder opinion remains unexplored. The present study examines the views of such experts.
A reliable and valid electronic survey was designed to establish trends using theoretical constructs relating to current assessment and management practices. Clinicians from the Society of Back Pain Research (SBPR) UK were invited to take part. Quantitative data were collated and coded using Bristol Online Surveys (BOS) software, and content analysis was used to systematically code and categorise qualitative data.
Specialist multidisciplinary spinal interest group in the UK.
38/141 clinically active, multidisciplinary SBPR members with specialist spinal interest participated. Among them, 84% had >9 years postgraduate clinical experience.
None.
Frequency distributions were used to establish general trends in quantitative data. Qualitative responses were coded and categorised in relation to each theme and percentage responses were calculated.
LDDD symptom recurrence, in the absence of psychosocial influence, was associated with physical signs of joint stiffness (26%), weakness (17%) and joint hypermobility (6%), while physical factors (21%) and the ability to adapt (11%) were postulated as reasons why some experience pain and others do not. No one management strategy was supported exclusively or with consensus. Regarding effective modalities, there was no significant difference between allied health professional and medic responses (p=0.1-0.8). The future of LDDD care was expressed in terms of improvements in patient communication (35%), patient education (38%) and treatment stratification (24%).
Results suggest that multidisciplinary expert spinal clinicians appear to follow UK-based assessment guidelines with regard to recurrent LDDD; there are, however, inconsistencies in the management approaches supported. This reflects the current literature and the lack of specific, formalised guidance. LDDD treatment stratification and further research are explicitly supported.
尽管腰椎退行性椎间盘疾病(LDDD)与非特异性下腰痛显著相关,且有效的治疗方法仍难以捉摸,但尚未探讨专科多学科临床利益相关者的意见。本研究调查了此类专家的观点。
设计了一项可靠且有效的电子调查问卷,以利用与当前评估和管理实践相关的理论结构来确定趋势。邀请了英国背痛研究协会(SBPR)的临床医生参与。使用布里斯托尔在线调查(BOS)软件整理和编码定量数据,并使用内容分析法对定性数据进行系统编码和分类。
英国的专科多学科脊柱兴趣小组。
141名具有脊柱专科兴趣的临床活跃的多学科SBPR成员中有38人参与。其中,84%拥有超过9年的研究生临床经验。
无。
使用频率分布来确定定量数据的总体趋势。对定性回答进行编码,并根据每个主题进行分类,计算回答的百分比。
在没有社会心理影响的情况下,LDDD症状复发与关节僵硬(26%)、无力(17%)和关节活动过度(6%)的体征相关,而身体因素(21%)和适应能力(11%)被认为是一些人经历疼痛而另一些人没有经历疼痛的原因。没有一种管理策略得到专门支持或达成共识。关于有效方式,专职医疗人员和医生的回答之间没有显著差异(p = 0.1 - 0.8)。LDDD护理的未来体现在患者沟通(35%)、患者教育(38%)和治疗分层(24%)的改善方面。
结果表明,多学科脊柱专科临床医生在复发性LDDD方面似乎遵循英国的评估指南;然而,所支持的管理方法存在不一致之处。这反映了当前的文献以及缺乏具体、正式的指导。明确支持LDDD治疗分层和进一步研究。