4 Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain centres: an antidote to anecdotes

PhD Dennis C. Turk (John and Emma Bonica Professor of Anesthesiology and Pain Research), PhD Akiko Okifuji (Research Assistant Professor)
{"title":"4 Efficacy of multidisciplinary pain centres: an antidote to anecdotes","authors":"PhD Dennis C. Turk (John and Emma Bonica Professor of Anesthesiology and Pain Research),&nbsp;PhD Akiko Okifuji (Research Assistant Professor)","doi":"10.1016/S0950-3501(98)80009-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Chronic pain is difficult to treat successfully. The lack of satisfactory outcome from the traditional medical, pharmacological and surgical approaches was an impetus to the development of specialty treatment facilities—multidisciplinary pain centers (MPCs). With health-care costs continuing to rise, the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of MPCs have recently been challenged. In this chapter, it is argued that the efficacy of treatment for chronic pain should be evaluated on multiple criteria: reduction in pain, use of analgesic medication and utilization of the health-care services. Increases in functional activity, return to work and closure of disability claims should also be considered. The published results for MPCs are reviewed in comparison with alternative treatment methods. The results suggest that MPCs are more effective than alternative monodisciplinary approaches. Furthermore, it is concluded that MPCs can produce saving of billions of dollars in terms of health-care expenditure and indemnity costs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":80610,"journal":{"name":"Bailliere's clinical anaesthesiology","volume":"12 1","pages":"Pages 103-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0950-3501(98)80009-3","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bailliere's clinical anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950350198800093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Chronic pain is difficult to treat successfully. The lack of satisfactory outcome from the traditional medical, pharmacological and surgical approaches was an impetus to the development of specialty treatment facilities—multidisciplinary pain centers (MPCs). With health-care costs continuing to rise, the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of MPCs have recently been challenged. In this chapter, it is argued that the efficacy of treatment for chronic pain should be evaluated on multiple criteria: reduction in pain, use of analgesic medication and utilization of the health-care services. Increases in functional activity, return to work and closure of disability claims should also be considered. The published results for MPCs are reviewed in comparison with alternative treatment methods. The results suggest that MPCs are more effective than alternative monodisciplinary approaches. Furthermore, it is concluded that MPCs can produce saving of billions of dollars in terms of health-care expenditure and indemnity costs.

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
多学科疼痛中心的疗效:轶事的解毒剂
慢性疼痛很难治疗成功。传统的医学、药理学和外科治疗方法缺乏令人满意的结果,这推动了专业治疗设施——多学科疼痛中心(MPCs)的发展。随着医疗保健费用的持续上升,MPCs的临床疗效和成本效益最近受到了挑战。本章认为,慢性疼痛的治疗效果应根据多种标准进行评估:减轻疼痛、使用镇痛药物和利用保健服务。还应考虑增加功能活动、重返工作岗位和终止残疾索赔。本文回顾了已发表的MPCs治疗结果,并与其他治疗方法进行了比较。结果表明,MPCs比其他单一学科方法更有效。此外,得出的结论是,MPCs可以在保健支出和赔偿费用方面节省数十亿美元。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Preface 9 Transoesophageal echocardiography in trauma patients 7 Monitoring by transoesophageal echocardiography in minimally invasive cardiac surgery 5 Left ventricular diastolic function 8 Echocardiography in aortic disease
×
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