Institute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
BMC Geriatr. 2024 Sep 4;24(1):731. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05317-2.
Chronic pain is a major health issue and rapid population ageing exacerbates the burden to health systems in countries like Germany. Nonpharmacological interventions (NPIs) are essential in pain care and the prioritization of active NPIs is emphasized in guidelines. This paper examines the utilization of NPIs for chronic pain management in community-dwelling older adults with a certified need of care in Berlin, Germany.
Cross-sectional data was collected through standardized face-to-face surveys with older adults (≥65 years), using validated instruments (e.g., Brief Pain Inventory), and structured lists for NPI utilization. Categorization into active and passive NPIs was performed through a literature-based, iterative process by an interdisciplinary team. For not normally distributed data, non-parametric tests were used as appropriate. Logistic regression was conducted for multivariate analysis.
In total, 250 participants were included in this analysis (aged 65-104, x̅ = 81.8, 68.8% female). Most (92%) use NPIs for chronic pain management: 85.6% use active NPIs, 50.4% active movement and only 5.6% use solely passive approaches. Most common NPIs are distraction, thermotherapy/compresses, and physiotherapy. The odds of utilizing physiotherapy are three times higher for those with high educational status when compared to those with low education while those with low educational status had higher odds of using thermotherapy/compresses.
In our sample, most community-dwelling older adults with a certified need of care use active NPIs for chronic pain management with about half using active movement approaches. Considering the high vulnerability of this population, physiotherapy (in the form of therapeutic exercise) is a particularly appropriate intervention, and it was the third most frequent NPI in our sample. However, there is a social gradient in the utilization of physiotherapy for chronic pain management which might be rooted in issues around awareness, appeal, and access to such measures. It is important to take socioeconomic differences into account when planning the care for older chronic pain patients but also when designing research or user-friendly guidelines for this target group.
Ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (EA1/368/14) and study registration with the Central Study Register (ZSR no. 20009093).
慢性疼痛是一个主要的健康问题,人口快速老龄化使德国等国家的医疗系统负担加重。非药物干预(NPIs)在疼痛治疗中至关重要,指南强调优先选择主动 NPI。本文研究了德国柏林有护理需求的社区居住的老年人群中 NPI 在慢性疼痛管理中的应用。
通过对老年人(≥65 岁)进行标准化的面对面调查,收集了横断面数据,使用了经过验证的工具(例如简短疼痛量表)和 NPI 利用情况的结构化清单。通过跨学科团队基于文献的迭代过程,将 NPI 分为主动和被动。对于非正态分布的数据,使用适当的非参数检验。多元分析采用逻辑回归。
共有 250 名参与者纳入本分析(年龄 65-104 岁,x̅=81.8,68.8%为女性)。大多数(92%)人使用 NPI 治疗慢性疼痛:85.6%使用主动 NPI,50.4%使用主动运动,只有 5.6%仅使用被动方法。最常见的 NPI 是分散注意力、热疗/冷敷和物理疗法。与低教育程度的人相比,教育程度高的人接受物理治疗的可能性高三倍,而教育程度低的人使用热疗/冷敷的可能性更高。
在我们的样本中,大多数有护理需求的社区居住的老年患者使用主动 NPI 治疗慢性疼痛,其中约一半使用主动运动方法。考虑到这一人群的高度脆弱性,物理治疗(以治疗性运动的形式)是一种特别合适的干预措施,也是我们样本中第三常见的 NPI。然而,在慢性疼痛管理中使用物理治疗存在社会梯度,这可能源于对这些措施的认识、吸引力和可及性问题。在为老年慢性疼痛患者规划护理时,需要考虑社会经济差异,在为这一目标群体设计研究或用户友好型指南时也是如此。
柏林夏里特医科大学伦理委员会的伦理批准(EA1/368/14)和中央研究登记处的研究注册(ZSR 编号 20009093)。