慢性疼痛患者的标准与强化疼痛管理方案的适当转诊、有效性和长期结果评估。

IF 1.3 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY British Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1177/20494637221132451
Jasmine H Hearn, Sarah Martin, Melanie Smith
{"title":"慢性疼痛患者的标准与强化疼痛管理方案的适当转诊、有效性和长期结果评估。","authors":"Jasmine H Hearn,&nbsp;Sarah Martin,&nbsp;Melanie Smith","doi":"10.1177/20494637221132451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability, often requiring multidisciplinary management. 2021 NICE guidance has questioned the quality of the evidence surrounding the efficacy of pain management programmes (PMPs), with only minor benefit demonstrated in psychological and physical outcomes. There is need for further high-quality evidence for the efficacy of PMPs for a range of chronic pain conditions and to identify barriers to successful management of chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This service evaluation utilised routinely collected outcome data of 508 PMP attendees to investigate change in pain- and patient-related outcomes across two distinct PMPs; a standard and an intensive PMP, and establish their longer-term efficacy and appropriateness for patients with differing degrees of need.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More people with chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis were referred to the intensive PMP (reflecting greater disability and distress in these conditions). Those referred to the intensive PMP demonstrated greater distress (such as more severe depression and anxiety), lower pain acceptance and poorer physical function. Improvements were observed in all outcomes across both PMPs (including physical function, pain catastrophising and pain acceptance). Depression and disability demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in the intensive PMP, and pain severity showed clinically meaningful improvement in both PMPs. However, depression severity, disability, pain severity, and pain interference significantly deteriorated at 6-month follow-up for those on the intensive PMP, with pain severity increasing to a clinically meaningful degree (by more than 10%), though these outcomes remained better than at baseline.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This evaluation identified that people with chronic pain most at risk of deterioration in physical and psychological wellbeing after completing a PMP require early identification to mitigate such deterioration. Established and emerging PMPs need to be tailored to the needs of this group, particularly at follow-up to reduce risks of pain severity increasing, alongside establishing/reinforcing safeguards against deterioration post-PMP.</p>","PeriodicalId":46585,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9940255/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of suitable referral, effectiveness and long-term outcomes of standard vs intensive pain management programmes for people with chronic pain.\",\"authors\":\"Jasmine H Hearn,&nbsp;Sarah Martin,&nbsp;Melanie Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20494637221132451\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability, often requiring multidisciplinary management. 2021 NICE guidance has questioned the quality of the evidence surrounding the efficacy of pain management programmes (PMPs), with only minor benefit demonstrated in psychological and physical outcomes. There is need for further high-quality evidence for the efficacy of PMPs for a range of chronic pain conditions and to identify barriers to successful management of chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This service evaluation utilised routinely collected outcome data of 508 PMP attendees to investigate change in pain- and patient-related outcomes across two distinct PMPs; a standard and an intensive PMP, and establish their longer-term efficacy and appropriateness for patients with differing degrees of need.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>More people with chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis were referred to the intensive PMP (reflecting greater disability and distress in these conditions). Those referred to the intensive PMP demonstrated greater distress (such as more severe depression and anxiety), lower pain acceptance and poorer physical function. Improvements were observed in all outcomes across both PMPs (including physical function, pain catastrophising and pain acceptance). Depression and disability demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in the intensive PMP, and pain severity showed clinically meaningful improvement in both PMPs. However, depression severity, disability, pain severity, and pain interference significantly deteriorated at 6-month follow-up for those on the intensive PMP, with pain severity increasing to a clinically meaningful degree (by more than 10%), though these outcomes remained better than at baseline.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This evaluation identified that people with chronic pain most at risk of deterioration in physical and psychological wellbeing after completing a PMP require early identification to mitigate such deterioration. Established and emerging PMPs need to be tailored to the needs of this group, particularly at follow-up to reduce risks of pain severity increasing, alongside establishing/reinforcing safeguards against deterioration post-PMP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9940255/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637221132451\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637221132451","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:慢性疼痛是致残的主要原因,通常需要多学科管理。2021年,NICE指南对疼痛管理方案(pmp)有效性证据的质量提出了质疑,仅在心理和身体结果方面证明了微小的益处。需要进一步的高质量证据来证明pmp对一系列慢性疼痛状况的疗效,并确定成功管理慢性疼痛的障碍。目的:本服务评估利用常规收集的508名PMP参与者的结果数据,调查两种不同PMP中疼痛和患者相关结果的变化;一个标准的和强化的PMP,并确定其长期疗效和适合不同程度需要的患者。结果:更多患有慢性广泛性疼痛、纤维肌痛和骨关节炎的患者被转介到强化PMP(反映出在这些情况下更大的残疾和痛苦)。那些接受强化PMP治疗的患者表现出更大的痛苦(如更严重的抑郁和焦虑),更低的疼痛接受度和更差的身体功能。两种pmp的所有结果均有改善(包括身体功能、疼痛灾难和疼痛接受)。抑郁和残疾在强化PMP中表现出有临床意义的改善,疼痛严重程度在两种PMP中都表现出有临床意义的改善。然而,在6个月的随访中,强化PMP患者的抑郁严重程度、残疾、疼痛严重程度和疼痛干扰显著恶化,疼痛严重程度增加到临床有意义的程度(超过10%),尽管这些结果仍然比基线时好。结论:这项评估确定了慢性疼痛患者在完成PMP后,身体和心理健康状况恶化的风险最大,需要早期识别以减轻这种恶化。现有的和新出现的pmp需要根据这一群体的需求进行调整,特别是在后续行动中,以减少疼痛严重程度增加的风险,同时建立/加强预防pmp后病情恶化的保障措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Assessment of suitable referral, effectiveness and long-term outcomes of standard vs intensive pain management programmes for people with chronic pain.

Background: Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability, often requiring multidisciplinary management. 2021 NICE guidance has questioned the quality of the evidence surrounding the efficacy of pain management programmes (PMPs), with only minor benefit demonstrated in psychological and physical outcomes. There is need for further high-quality evidence for the efficacy of PMPs for a range of chronic pain conditions and to identify barriers to successful management of chronic pain.

Objective: This service evaluation utilised routinely collected outcome data of 508 PMP attendees to investigate change in pain- and patient-related outcomes across two distinct PMPs; a standard and an intensive PMP, and establish their longer-term efficacy and appropriateness for patients with differing degrees of need.

Results: More people with chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis were referred to the intensive PMP (reflecting greater disability and distress in these conditions). Those referred to the intensive PMP demonstrated greater distress (such as more severe depression and anxiety), lower pain acceptance and poorer physical function. Improvements were observed in all outcomes across both PMPs (including physical function, pain catastrophising and pain acceptance). Depression and disability demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in the intensive PMP, and pain severity showed clinically meaningful improvement in both PMPs. However, depression severity, disability, pain severity, and pain interference significantly deteriorated at 6-month follow-up for those on the intensive PMP, with pain severity increasing to a clinically meaningful degree (by more than 10%), though these outcomes remained better than at baseline.

Conclusion: This evaluation identified that people with chronic pain most at risk of deterioration in physical and psychological wellbeing after completing a PMP require early identification to mitigate such deterioration. Established and emerging PMPs need to be tailored to the needs of this group, particularly at follow-up to reduce risks of pain severity increasing, alongside establishing/reinforcing safeguards against deterioration post-PMP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Pain
British Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: British Journal of Pain is a peer-reviewed quarterly British journal with an international multidisciplinary Editorial Board. The journal publishes original research and reviews on all major aspects of pain and pain management. Reviews reflect the body of evidence of the topic and are suitable for a multidisciplinary readership. Where empirical evidence is lacking, the reviews reflect the generally held opinions of experts in the field. The Journal has broadened its scope and has become a forum for publishing primary research together with brief reports related to pain and pain interventions. Submissions from all over the world have been published and are welcome. Official journal of the British Pain Society.
期刊最新文献
What influences post-operative opioid requirements for tibial fractures? Botulinum toxin: Should we reconsider its place in the treatment of neuropathic pain? Experience of compassion-based practice in mindfulness for health for individuals with persistent pain. Prehabilitation: The underutilised weapon for chronic pain management. The interaction between psychological factors and conditioned pain modulation.
×
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