Are Tailored Interventions to Modifiable Psychosocial Risk Factors Effective in Reducing Pain Intensity and Disability in Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.2519/jospt.2025.12777
Pouya Rabiei, Catelyn Keough, Philippe Patricio, Claudia Côté-Picard, Amélie Desgagnés, Hugo Massé-Alarie
{"title":"Are Tailored Interventions to Modifiable Psychosocial Risk Factors Effective in Reducing Pain Intensity and Disability in Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.","authors":"Pouya Rabiei, Catelyn Keough, Philippe Patricio, Claudia Côté-Picard, Amélie Desgagnés, Hugo Massé-Alarie","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2025.12777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To determine whether tailored interventions based on patients' psychological profiles enhanced the outcomes of interventions in people with nonspecific low back pain, compared to usual care. <b>DESIGN:</b> Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. <b>LITERATURE SEARCH:</b> Embase, Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from their inception until November 2, 2023. <b>STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA:</b> We included randomized clinical trials that compared psychological interventions to any alternatives without psychological components in patients with nonspecific low back pain who were stratified based on their psychological risk factors using the cutoff of the questionnaires measuring a psychological construct. <b>DATA SYNTHESIS:</b> The outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to judge certainty of evidence. <b>RESULTS:</b> Twenty-nine trials were included, most presenting some concerns for the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was mostly low, with moderate to substantial heterogeneity. Using psychological stratification, individuals who received a psychological intervention (versus usual care) reported lower pain intensity at the short term (MD, -0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.41, -0.02) and midterm (MD, -0.37; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.16). For disability, there was a larger improvement with psychological interventions versus usual care at short-term (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI: -0.32, -0.02), midterm (SMD, -0.16; 95% CI: -0.28, -0.05), and long-term (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI: -0.29, -0.04) follow-ups. <b>CONCLUSIONS:</b> Psychological interventions had a positive impact, although small, on reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain and psychological risk factors. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(2):1-20. Epub 3 January 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12777</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":"55 2","pages":"89-108"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2025.12777","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether tailored interventions based on patients' psychological profiles enhanced the outcomes of interventions in people with nonspecific low back pain, compared to usual care. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Embase, Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from their inception until November 2, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials that compared psychological interventions to any alternatives without psychological components in patients with nonspecific low back pain who were stratified based on their psychological risk factors using the cutoff of the questionnaires measuring a psychological construct. DATA SYNTHESIS: The outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to judge certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials were included, most presenting some concerns for the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was mostly low, with moderate to substantial heterogeneity. Using psychological stratification, individuals who received a psychological intervention (versus usual care) reported lower pain intensity at the short term (MD, -0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.41, -0.02) and midterm (MD, -0.37; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.16). For disability, there was a larger improvement with psychological interventions versus usual care at short-term (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI: -0.32, -0.02), midterm (SMD, -0.16; 95% CI: -0.28, -0.05), and long-term (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI: -0.29, -0.04) follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological interventions had a positive impact, although small, on reducing pain intensity and disability in patients with low back pain and psychological risk factors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(2):1-20. Epub 3 January 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12777.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® (JOSPT®) publishes scientifically rigorous, clinically relevant content for physical therapists and others in the health care community to advance musculoskeletal and sports-related practice globally. To this end, JOSPT features the latest evidence-based research and clinical cases in musculoskeletal health, injury, and rehabilitation, including physical therapy, orthopaedics, sports medicine, and biomechanics. With an impact factor of 3.090, JOSPT is among the highest ranked physical therapy journals in Clarivate Analytics''s Journal Citation Reports, Science Edition (2017). JOSPT stands eighth of 65 journals in the category of rehabilitation, twelfth of 77 journals in orthopedics, and fourteenth of 81 journals in sport sciences. JOSPT''s 5-year impact factor is 4.061.
期刊最新文献
Myofascial Pain Syndromes: Controversies and Suggestions for Improving Diagnosis and Treatment. Can Baseline MRI Findings Identify Who Responds Better to Early Surgery Versus Exercise and Education in Young Patients With Meniscal Tears? A Subgroup Analysis From the DREAM Trial. Evolving the Control-Chaos Continuum: Part 2-Shifting "Attention" to Progress On-Pitch Rehabilitation. Are Women Less Likely to Return to Sport Compared to Men Following Hip Arthroscopy. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Shouldering Our Way Into a More Meaningful Research Agenda for Atraumatic Shoulder Pain: A Priority Setting 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