Suppr超能文献

在低收入诊所中,适应文化程度的认知行为疗法与教育治疗慢性疼痛:一项随机对照试验。

Literacy-Adapted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Versus Education for Chronic Pain at Low-Income Clinics: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

机构信息

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama (B.E.T., J.C.E., B.P.V., C.A.T., A.K.N., P.R.B., M.M.M.).

Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois (J.W.B.).

出版信息

Ann Intern Med. 2018 Apr 3;168(7):471-480. doi: 10.7326/M17-0972. Epub 2018 Feb 27.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common and challenging to treat. Although cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is efficacious, its benefit in disadvantaged populations is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of literacy-adapted and simplified group CBT versus group pain education (EDU) versus usual care.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01967342).

SETTING

Community health centers serving low-income patients in Alabama.

PATIENTS

Adults (aged 19 to 71 years) with mixed chronic pain.

INTERVENTIONS

CBT and EDU delivered in 10 weekly 90-minute group sessions.

MEASUREMENTS

Self-reported, postintervention pain intensity (primary outcome) and physical function and depression (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

290 participants were enrolled (70.7% of whom were women, 66.9% minority group members, 72.4% at or below the poverty level, and 35.8% reading below the fifth grade level); 241 (83.1%) participated in posttreatment assessments. Linear mixed models included all randomly assigned participants. Members of the CBT and EDU groups had larger decreases in pain intensity scores between baseline and posttreatment than participants receiving usual care (estimated differences in change scores-CBT: -0.80 [95% CI -1.48 to -0.11]; P = 0.022; EDU: -0.57 [CI, -1.04 to -0.10]; P = 0.018). At 6-month follow-up, treatment gains were not maintained in the CBT group but were still present in the EDU group. With regard to physical function, participants in the CBT and EDU interventions had greater posttreatment improvement than those receiving usual care, and this progress was maintained at 6-month follow-up. Changes in depression (secondary outcome) did not differ between either the CBT or EDU group and the usual care group.

LIMITATIONS

Participants represented a single health care system. Self-selection bias may have been present.

CONCLUSION

Simplified group CBT and EDU interventions delivered at low-income clinics significantly improved pain and physical function compared with usual care.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

摘要

背景

慢性疼痛很常见,且难以治疗。虽然认知行为疗法(CBT)有效,但它在弱势群体中的益处还知之甚少。

目的

评估文化适应性简化小组 CBT 与小组疼痛教育(EDU)相比,与常规护理相比的疗效。

设计

随机对照试验。(ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01967342)。

地点

阿拉巴马州为低收入患者提供服务的社区健康中心。

患者

患有混合性慢性疼痛的成年人(年龄在 19 至 71 岁之间)。

干预措施

在 10 周的每周 90 分钟小组会议中提供 CBT 和 EDU。

测量

自我报告的干预后疼痛强度(主要结果)以及身体功能和抑郁(次要结果)。

结果

共纳入 290 名参与者(其中 70.7%为女性,66.9%为少数族裔成员,72.4%处于贫困线以下,35.8%阅读水平低于五年级);241 名(83.1%)参与者参加了治疗后评估。线性混合模型包括所有随机分配的参与者。CBT 和 EDU 组的疼痛强度评分从基线到治疗后下降幅度大于接受常规护理的参与者(估计变化分数差异-CBT:-0.80[95%CI-1.48 至-0.11];P=0.022;EDU:-0.57[CI,-1.04 至-0.10];P=0.018)。在 6 个月的随访中,CBT 组的治疗效果没有维持,但 EDU 组仍存在。至于身体功能,CBT 和 EDU 干预组的参与者在治疗后有更大的改善,并且在 6 个月的随访中保持了这种进展。抑郁(次要结果)的变化在 CBT 或 EDU 组与常规护理组之间没有差异。

局限性

参与者代表了一个单一的医疗保健系统。可能存在自我选择偏倚。

结论

在低收入诊所提供简化的小组 CBT 和 EDU 干预措施可显著改善疼痛和身体功能,优于常规护理。

主要资金来源

患者为中心的结果研究所。

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