A Feasibility Study of Pain Neuroscience Education and Exercise for Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Chronic Pain.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1519/JPT.0000000000000327
Emanuel Heleno, Rosa Andias, Maritza Neto, Anabela G Silva
{"title":"A Feasibility Study of Pain Neuroscience Education and Exercise for Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Chronic Pain.","authors":"Emanuel Heleno,&nbsp;Rosa Andias,&nbsp;Maritza Neto,&nbsp;Anabela G Silva","doi":"10.1519/JPT.0000000000000327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Pain prevalence in older adults is high and greatly impacts their functioning. The primary aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of an intervention consisting of pain neuroscience education (PNE) plus exercise for community-dwelling older adults attending primary care, by assessing recruitment rates (inclusion, refusal, and exclusion rates), adverse events, and acceptability of the intervention. Secondary aims were to establish suitable procedures for delivering the intervention and assess the feasibility of data collection for psychosocial and physical functioning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods feasibility study with 2 groups was conducted. One group received 8 weekly 75-minute sessions of PNE plus exercise (PNE+E) and the other received usual care (UC), which consisted of appointments with the general practitioner. Inclusion, refusal, exclusion, and retention rates, dropouts, and adverse events were assessed. The Brief Pain Inventory, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Tampa Scale, the Geriatric Depression Scale, the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, the 4-meter walk gait speed test and the 5 times sit-to-stand tests were used for assessment. A focus group interview was conducted with participants from the PNE+E group. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>Of 61 participants recruited, 33 (PNE+E = 22; UC = 11) entered the study, and 24 completed the intervention (PNE+E = 15; UC = 9). The inclusion rate was 54%, the refusal rate was 21%, the exclusion rate was 35%, the dropout rate was 32% in the PNE+E and 18% in the UC, and the retention rate was 68% in the PNE+E group and 82% in the UC group. No adverse events were reported and the intervention was well accepted by participants. Data collection for the clinical outcomes was feasible and results suggested higher improvements in the PNE+E group than in the UC group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PNE+E is possible to implement, safe, and well accepted by community-dwelling older adults independent of their education level. This study informs future studies on practical and methodological strategies that should be considered when designing a PNE+E intervention for older adults, such as adapting the language of the PNE to participants, using relatable metaphors, and encouraging written and exercise homework.</p>","PeriodicalId":49035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy","volume":"46 1","pages":"26-35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000327","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: Pain prevalence in older adults is high and greatly impacts their functioning. The primary aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of an intervention consisting of pain neuroscience education (PNE) plus exercise for community-dwelling older adults attending primary care, by assessing recruitment rates (inclusion, refusal, and exclusion rates), adverse events, and acceptability of the intervention. Secondary aims were to establish suitable procedures for delivering the intervention and assess the feasibility of data collection for psychosocial and physical functioning.

Methods: A mixed-methods feasibility study with 2 groups was conducted. One group received 8 weekly 75-minute sessions of PNE plus exercise (PNE+E) and the other received usual care (UC), which consisted of appointments with the general practitioner. Inclusion, refusal, exclusion, and retention rates, dropouts, and adverse events were assessed. The Brief Pain Inventory, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Tampa Scale, the Geriatric Depression Scale, the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, the 4-meter walk gait speed test and the 5 times sit-to-stand tests were used for assessment. A focus group interview was conducted with participants from the PNE+E group. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data.

Results and discussion: Of 61 participants recruited, 33 (PNE+E = 22; UC = 11) entered the study, and 24 completed the intervention (PNE+E = 15; UC = 9). The inclusion rate was 54%, the refusal rate was 21%, the exclusion rate was 35%, the dropout rate was 32% in the PNE+E and 18% in the UC, and the retention rate was 68% in the PNE+E group and 82% in the UC group. No adverse events were reported and the intervention was well accepted by participants. Data collection for the clinical outcomes was feasible and results suggested higher improvements in the PNE+E group than in the UC group.

Conclusion: PNE+E is possible to implement, safe, and well accepted by community-dwelling older adults independent of their education level. This study informs future studies on practical and methodological strategies that should be considered when designing a PNE+E intervention for older adults, such as adapting the language of the PNE to participants, using relatable metaphors, and encouraging written and exercise homework.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社区老年慢性疼痛患者疼痛神经科学教育与锻炼的可行性研究。
背景和目的:疼痛在老年人中的患病率很高,并极大地影响了他们的功能。本研究的主要目的是通过评估招募率(纳入率、拒绝率和排除率)、不良事件和干预的可接受性,确定由疼痛神经科学教育(PNE)加运动组成的干预措施对社区居住的老年人参加初级保健的可行性。次要目的是建立提供干预的适当程序,并评估收集社会心理和身体功能数据的可行性。方法:采用两组混合方法进行可行性研究。一组接受每周8次75分钟的PNE+运动(PNE+E),另一组接受常规护理(UC),包括与全科医生的预约。评估纳入、拒绝、排除和保留率、退出和不良事件。采用疼痛简易量表、疼痛灾难化量表、坦帕量表、老年抑郁量表、世界卫生组织残疾评估表、4米步行步态速度测试和5次坐立测试进行评估。对来自PNE+E组的参与者进行焦点小组访谈。定量数据采用描述性统计,定性数据采用专题分析。结果与讨论:61名参与者中,33名(PNE+E = 22;UC = 11)进入研究,24人完成干预(PNE+E = 15;UC = 9)。纳入率为54%,拒绝率为21%,排除率为35%,PNE+E组退学率为32%,UC组退学率为18%,PNE+E组保留率为68%,UC组保留率为82%。无不良事件报告,干预措施被参与者很好地接受。临床结果的数据收集是可行的,结果表明PNE+E组的改善程度高于UC组。结论:PNE+E是可行的、安全的、受教育程度无关的社区老年人的接受程度。这项研究为未来的研究提供了参考,这些研究在为老年人设计PNE+E干预时应该考虑的实践和方法策略,例如使PNE的语言适应参与者,使用相关的隐喻,并鼓励书面和练习作业。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.20%
发文量
58
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy is the leading source of clinically applicable evidence for achieving optimal health, wellness, mobility, and physical function across the continuum of health status for the aging adult. The mission of the Academy of Geriatric Physical Therapy is building a community that advances the profession of physical therapy to optimize the experience of aging.
期刊最新文献
A Scoping Review of the Predictive Qualities of Walking Speed in Older Adults. Associations of Usual and Fast Gait Speed With Physical Performance and Balance Confidence in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Implications for Assessment. Simple Mobility Tests Predict Use of Assistive Devices in Older Adults. Step Test Evaluation of Performance on Stairs (STEPS): Assessing Stair Function in Older Adults. The Power of Language: Words to Mend or Fuel Ageism Within Geriatrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1