68
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain

      journal-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

          Related collections

          Most cited references170

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Impact of psychological factors in the experience of pain.

          This article reviews the role of psychological factors in the development of persistent pain and disability, with a focus on how basic psychological processes have been incorporated into theoretical models that have implications for physical therapy. To this end, the key psychological factors associated with the experience of pain are summarized, and an overview of how they have been integrated into the major models of pain and disability in the scientific literature is presented. Pain has clear emotional and behavioral consequences that influence the development of persistent problems and the outcome of treatment. Yet, these psychological factors are not routinely assessed in physical therapy clinics, nor are they sufficiently utilized to enhance treatment. Based on a review of the scientific evidence, a set of 10 principles that have likely implications for clinical practice is offered. Because psychological processes have an influence on both the experience of pain and the treatment outcome, the integration of psychological principles into physical therapy treatment would seem to have potential to enhance outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic review: strategies for using exercise therapy to improve outcomes in chronic low back pain.

            Exercise therapy encompasses a heterogeneous group of interventions. There continues to be uncertainty about the most effective exercise approach in chronic low back pain. To identify particular exercise intervention characteristics that decrease pain and improve function in adults with nonspecific chronic low back pain. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases to October 2004 and citation searches and bibliographic reviews of previous systematic reviews. Randomized, controlled trials evaluating exercise therapy in populations with chronic (>12 weeks duration) low back pain. Two reviewers independently extracted data on exercise intervention characteristics: program design (individually designed or standard program), delivery type (independent home exercises, group, or individual supervision), dose or intensity (hours of intervention time), and inclusion of additional conservative interventions. 43 trials of 72 exercise treatment and 31 comparison groups were included. Bayesian multivariable random-effects meta-regression found improved pain scores for individually designed programs (5.4 points [95% credible interval (CrI), 1.3 to 9.5 points]), supervised home exercise (6.1 points [CrI, -0.2 to 12.4 points]), group (4.8 points [CrI, 0.2 to 9.4 points]), and individually supervised programs (5.9 points [CrI, 2.1 to 9.8 points]) compared with home exercises only. High-dose exercise programs fared better than low-dose exercise programs (1.8 points [CrI, -2.1 to 5.5 points]). Interventions that included additional conservative care were better (5.1 points [CrI, 1.8 to 8.4 points]). A model including these most effective intervention characteristics would be expected to demonstrate important improvement in pain (18.1 points [CrI, 11.1 to 25.0 points] compared with no treatment and 13.0 points [CrI, 6.0 to 19.9 points] compared with other conservative treatment) and small improvement in function (5.5 points [CrI, 0.5 to 10.5 points] compared with no treatment and 2.7 points [CrI, -1.7 to 7.1 points] compared with other conservative treatment). Stretching and strengthening demonstrated the largest improvement over comparisons. Limitations of the literature, including low-quality studies with heterogeneous outcome measures and inconsistent and poor reporting; publication bias. Exercise therapy that consists of individually designed programs, including stretching or strengthening, and is delivered with supervision may improve pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Strategies should be used to encourage adherence. Future studies should test this multivariable model and further assess specific patient-level characteristics and exercise types.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centers: a meta-analytic review.

              Sixty-five studies that evaluated the efficacy of multidisciplinary treatments for chronic back pain were included in a meta-analysis. Within- and between-group effect sizes revealed that multidisciplinary treatments for chronic pain are superior to no treatment, waiting list, as well as single-discipline treatments such as medical treatment or physical therapy. Moreover, the effects appeared to be stable over time. The beneficial effects of multidisciplinary treatment were not limited to improvements in pain, mood and interference but also extended to behavioral variables such as return to work or use of the health care system. These results tend to support the efficacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment; however, these results must be interpreted cautiously as the quality of the study designs and study descriptions is marginal. Suggestions for improvement in research designs as well as appropriate reports of research completed are provided.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Wiley
                2014
                02 September 2014
                05 August 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ] The George Institute for Global Health; Musculoskeletal Division; PO Box M201 Missenden Road, Camperdown Sydney NSW Australia 2050
                [2 ] VU University Medical Centre; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research; Amsterdam Netherlands
                [3 ] VU University Amsterdam; Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences; Amsterdam Netherlands
                [4 ] Maastricht University Medical Centre; Rehabilitation Medicine Department; Debyelaan 25 PO Box 5800 Maastricht Netherlands 6202 AZ
                [5 ] VU University; Department of Health Sciences, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research; PO Box 7057 Amsterdam Netherlands 1007 MB
                [6 ] University of British Columbia; Vancouver BC Canada
                [7 ] VU University; Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences; PO Box 7057 Room U454 Amsterdam Netherlands 1007 MB
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD000963.PUB3
                25180773
                dc838e65-0395-4735-9304-b6fe6f4c67b1
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article