The effectiveness of peer support interventions for community-dwelling adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

IF 5.9 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY PAIN® Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-25 DOI:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003293
Monique V Wilson, Felicity A Braithwaite, John B Arnold, Sophie M Crouch, Emily Moore, Alrun Heil, Kay Cooper, Tasha R Stanton
{"title":"The effectiveness of peer support interventions for community-dwelling adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.","authors":"Monique V Wilson, Felicity A Braithwaite, John B Arnold, Sophie M Crouch, Emily Moore, Alrun Heil, Kay Cooper, Tasha R Stanton","doi":"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis critically examined the evidence for peer support interventions to reduce pain and improve health outcomes in community-dwelling adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain (PROSPERO CRD42022356850). A systematic search (inception-January 2023) of electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken to identify relevant randomised controlled trials, with risk of bias and GRADE assessments performed on included studies. Meta-analyses used a generic, inverse-variance, random-effects model, calculating mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). Of 16,445 records identified, 29 records reporting on 24 studies (n = 6202 participants) were included. All evidence had unclear/high risk of bias and low-very low certainty. Peer support interventions resulted in small improvements in pain (medium-term: MD -3.48, 95% CI -6.61, -0.35; long-term: MD -1.97, 95% CI -3.53, -0.42), self-efficacy (medium-term: SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16, 0.36; long-term: SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.07, 0.36), and function (long-term: SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.19, -0.00) relative to usual care and greater self-efficacy (medium-term: SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.20, 0.51) relative to waitlist control. Peer support interventions resulted in similar improvement as active (health professional led) interventions bar long-term self-efficacy (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.77, -0.05), which favoured active interventions. No point estimates reached minimal clinically important difference thresholds. Pooled health service utilisation outcomes showed unclear estimates. Self-management, quality of life, and social support outcomes had mixed evidence. Despite low-very low evidence certainty, peer support interventions demonstrated small improvements over usual care and waitlist controls for some clinical outcomes, suggesting that peer support may be useful as an adjunct to other treatments for musculoskeletal pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":19921,"journal":{"name":"PAIN®","volume":" ","pages":"2698-2720"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PAIN®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003293","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis critically examined the evidence for peer support interventions to reduce pain and improve health outcomes in community-dwelling adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain (PROSPERO CRD42022356850). A systematic search (inception-January 2023) of electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken to identify relevant randomised controlled trials, with risk of bias and GRADE assessments performed on included studies. Meta-analyses used a generic, inverse-variance, random-effects model, calculating mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). Of 16,445 records identified, 29 records reporting on 24 studies (n = 6202 participants) were included. All evidence had unclear/high risk of bias and low-very low certainty. Peer support interventions resulted in small improvements in pain (medium-term: MD -3.48, 95% CI -6.61, -0.35; long-term: MD -1.97, 95% CI -3.53, -0.42), self-efficacy (medium-term: SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16, 0.36; long-term: SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.07, 0.36), and function (long-term: SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.19, -0.00) relative to usual care and greater self-efficacy (medium-term: SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.20, 0.51) relative to waitlist control. Peer support interventions resulted in similar improvement as active (health professional led) interventions bar long-term self-efficacy (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.77, -0.05), which favoured active interventions. No point estimates reached minimal clinically important difference thresholds. Pooled health service utilisation outcomes showed unclear estimates. Self-management, quality of life, and social support outcomes had mixed evidence. Despite low-very low evidence certainty, peer support interventions demonstrated small improvements over usual care and waitlist controls for some clinical outcomes, suggesting that peer support may be useful as an adjunct to other treatments for musculoskeletal pain.

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
针对社区成人慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛患者的同伴支持干预措施的有效性:随机试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
摘要:本系统综述和荟萃分析批判性地研究了同伴支持干预措施在社区慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛成人中减轻疼痛和改善健康结果的证据(PROSPERO CRD42022356850)。我们对电子数据库和灰色文献进行了系统性检索(开始时间至 2023 年 1 月),以确定相关的随机对照试验,并对纳入的研究进行了偏倚风险和 GRADE 评估。元分析采用通用的反方差随机效应模型,计算平均差(MD)或标准化平均差(SMD)。在确定的 16445 条记录中,纳入了 29 条记录,报告了 24 项研究(n = 6202 名参与者)。所有证据的偏倚风险均不明确/较高,确定性较低。同伴支持干预对疼痛有轻微改善(中期:中期:MD -3.48,95% CI -6.61,-0.35;长期:MD -1.97,95% CI -6.61,-0.35:MD-1.97,95% CI -3.53,-0.42)、自我效能(中期:SMD 0.26,95% CI -3.53,-0.42):中期:SMD 0.26,95% CI 0.16,0.36;长期:SMD 0.21,95% CI 0.16,0.36:相对于常规护理,同伴支持干预可提高患者的自我效能(中期:SMD 0.36,95% CI 0.07,0.36)和功能(长期:SMD -0.10,95% CI -0.19,-0.00);相对于候补对照组,同伴支持干预可提高患者的自我效能(中期:SMD 0.36,95% CI 0.20,0.51)。同伴支持干预与积极干预(由卫生专业人员主导)在长期自我效能方面的改善效果相似(MD -0.41,95% CI -0.77,-0.05),积极干预更胜一筹。没有一个点估计值达到最小临床重要差异阈值。汇总的医疗服务利用率结果显示出不明确的估计值。自我管理、生活质量和社会支持结果的证据不一。尽管证据确定性很低,但同伴支持干预在某些临床结果上比常规护理和候补名单对照有小幅改善,这表明同伴支持作为其他治疗肌肉骨骼疼痛的辅助手段可能是有用的。
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
PAIN®
PAIN® 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
8.10%
发文量
242
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: PAIN® is the official publication of the International Association for the Study of Pain and publishes original research on the nature,mechanisms and treatment of pain.PAIN® provides a forum for the dissemination of research in the basic and clinical sciences of multidisciplinary interest.
期刊最新文献
Experiencing pain: perspectives of Patrick D. Wall-founding editor of the journal PAIN. The effect of top-down attention on secondary mechanical hyperalgesia: improvements and controversies? The social nature of human pain. Prediction of the response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex in peripheral neuropathic pain and validation of a new algorithm. Adolescent predictors of young adult pain and health outcomes: results from a 6-year prospective follow-up study.
×
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