Effectiveness of primary care interventions in conjointly treating comorbid chronic pain and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Family practice Pub Date : 2024-06-12 DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmad061
Krishna H Patel, Benjamin Chrisinger
{"title":"Effectiveness of primary care interventions in conjointly treating comorbid chronic pain and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Krishna H Patel, Benjamin Chrisinger","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmad061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic pain and depression are highly comorbid, but the lack of consensus on the best treatment strategies puts patients at high risk of suboptimal care-coordination as well as health and social complications. Therefore, this study aims to quantitatively assesses how effective different primary care interventions have been in treating the comorbid state of chronic pain and depression. In particular, this study evaluates both short-term outcomes-based specifically on measures of chronic pain and depression during an intervention itself-and long-term outcomes or measures of pain and depression in the months after conclusion of the formal study intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with concurrent chronic pain and depression. Intensity and severity of pain and depression symptoms were the primary outcomes. The main inclusion criteria were RCTs that: (i) enrolled patients diagnosed with depression and chronic pain, (ii) occurred in primary care settings, (iii) reported baseline and post-intervention outcomes for chronic pain and depression, (iv) lasted at least 8 weeks, and (v) used clinically validated outcome measures. Risk of bias was appraised with the Risk of Bias 2 tool, and GRADE guidelines were used to evaluate the quality of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 692 screened citations, 7 multicomponent primary care interventions tested across 891 patients were included. Meta-analyses revealed significant improvements in depression at post-intervention (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI [0.17, 0.71], P = 0.0014) and follow-up (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI [0.01, 0.81], P = 0.0448). Non-significant effects were observed for chronic pain at post-intervention (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.61], P = 0.1287) and follow-up (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.3, 0.56], P = 0.5432).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the results of the meta-analysis, primary care interventions largely yielded small to moderate positive effects for depressive symptoms and no significant effects on pain. In one study, stepped-care to be more effective in treatment of comorbid chronic pain and depression than other interventions both during the intervention and upon post-intervention follow-up. As such, depression appears more amenable to treatment than pain, but the number of published RCTs assessing both conditions is limited. More research is needed to further develop optimal treatment strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmad061","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chronic pain and depression are highly comorbid, but the lack of consensus on the best treatment strategies puts patients at high risk of suboptimal care-coordination as well as health and social complications. Therefore, this study aims to quantitatively assesses how effective different primary care interventions have been in treating the comorbid state of chronic pain and depression. In particular, this study evaluates both short-term outcomes-based specifically on measures of chronic pain and depression during an intervention itself-and long-term outcomes or measures of pain and depression in the months after conclusion of the formal study intervention.

Methods: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with concurrent chronic pain and depression. Intensity and severity of pain and depression symptoms were the primary outcomes. The main inclusion criteria were RCTs that: (i) enrolled patients diagnosed with depression and chronic pain, (ii) occurred in primary care settings, (iii) reported baseline and post-intervention outcomes for chronic pain and depression, (iv) lasted at least 8 weeks, and (v) used clinically validated outcome measures. Risk of bias was appraised with the Risk of Bias 2 tool, and GRADE guidelines were used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

Results: Of 692 screened citations, 7 multicomponent primary care interventions tested across 891 patients were included. Meta-analyses revealed significant improvements in depression at post-intervention (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI [0.17, 0.71], P = 0.0014) and follow-up (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI [0.01, 0.81], P = 0.0448). Non-significant effects were observed for chronic pain at post-intervention (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.61], P = 0.1287) and follow-up (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.3, 0.56], P = 0.5432).

Conclusions: Based on the results of the meta-analysis, primary care interventions largely yielded small to moderate positive effects for depressive symptoms and no significant effects on pain. In one study, stepped-care to be more effective in treatment of comorbid chronic pain and depression than other interventions both during the intervention and upon post-intervention follow-up. As such, depression appears more amenable to treatment than pain, but the number of published RCTs assessing both conditions is limited. More research is needed to further develop optimal treatment strategies.

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
联合治疗慢性疼痛和抑郁症的初级保健干预措施的有效性:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:慢性疼痛和抑郁症是高度并发症,但由于对最佳治疗策略缺乏共识,患者极易出现护理协调不佳以及健康和社会并发症。因此,本研究旨在定量评估不同的初级保健干预措施在治疗慢性疼痛和抑郁并发症方面的效果。特别是,本研究评估了干预期间慢性疼痛和抑郁的短期疗效,以及正式研究干预结束后数月疼痛和抑郁的长期疗效:本研究是对随机对照试验(RCT)的系统回顾和荟萃分析,研究对象为同时患有慢性疼痛和抑郁症的患者。疼痛和抑郁症状的强度和严重程度是主要结果。主要纳入标准是符合以下条件的随机对照试验(i)招募了被诊断为抑郁症和慢性疼痛的患者;(ii)发生在初级医疗机构;(iii)报告了慢性疼痛和抑郁症的基线和干预后结果;(iv)持续至少 8 周;(v)使用了经临床验证的结果测量方法。使用 "偏倚风险2 "工具评估偏倚风险,并使用GRADE指南评估证据质量:结果:在筛选出的 692 篇引文中,共纳入了 7 项多成分初级保健干预措施,对 891 名患者进行了测试。元分析表明,干预后(SMD = 0.44,95% CI [0.17,0.71],P = 0.0014)和随访(SMD = 0.41,95% CI [0.01,0.81],P = 0.0448)抑郁症明显好转。干预后(SMD = 0.27,95% CI [-0.08,0.61],P = 0.1287)和随访(SMD = 0.13,95% CI [-0.3,0.56],P = 0.5432)观察到对慢性疼痛无显著影响:根据荟萃分析的结果,初级保健干预对抑郁症状产生了小到中等程度的积极影响,而对疼痛没有显著影响。在一项研究中,无论是在干预期间还是干预后的随访中,阶梯式护理在治疗合并慢性疼痛和抑郁症方面都比其他干预措施更有效。因此,抑郁症似乎比疼痛更适合治疗,但已发表的评估这两种情况的 RCT 数量有限。要进一步制定最佳治疗策略,还需要进行更多的研究。
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
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Impact of implementing primary care-based medication for opioid use disorder on provider and staff perceptions. The effect and implementation of the COVID Box, a remote patient monitoring system for patients with a COVID-19 infection in primary care: a matched cohort study. Can patient education initiatives in primary care increase patient knowledge of appropriate antibiotic use and decrease expectations for unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions? Clinical effects of accreditation in general practice: a pragmatic randomized controlled study. School absence policy and healthcare use: a difference-in-difference cohort analysis.
×
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