在短期多学科康复计划中,疼痛神经科学教育并不优于脊柱生理学和人体工程学教育:随机对照试验

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103176
Nicolas Adenis , Valérie Wieczorek , Sophie Corbinau , Léa Mortain , André Thevenon
{"title":"在短期多学科康复计划中,疼痛神经科学教育并不优于脊柱生理学和人体工程学教育:随机对照试验","authors":"Nicolas Adenis ,&nbsp;Valérie Wieczorek ,&nbsp;Sophie Corbinau ,&nbsp;Léa Mortain ,&nbsp;André Thevenon","doi":"10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>There is little evidence to suggest that one educational intervention is superior to another when associated with a rehabilitation program in the management of persistent low back pain. The objective of the present study was to compare pain neuroscience education with spine physiology and ergonomics education as part of a one-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>We conducted a randomized, controlled trial among patients having experienced persistent low back pain for at least 1 year. The patients participated in a one-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program with an educational component. The members of the experimental and control groups received pain neuroscience education and spine physiology and ergonomics education, respectively. Outcomes were assessed before the program (day 0), immediately afterwards (day 5), and on day 90 after the start of the program. The primary outcome measure was functional disability on day 90.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 88 patients were randomized. On day 90, a statistically significant mean [95% confidence interval] decrease in the level of disability was observed in the experimental (PNE) group (−3.4 [-5.0 to −1.8]). The mean [95%CI] difference versus the control group (−1.7 [-4.0 to 0.5]) was not statistically significant (p = 0.12). There were no statistically significant intergroup differences in the secondary outcome measures.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There appears to be no advantage in replacing a conventional, non-neuroscientific educational program (based on spinal physiology and ergonomics) with a pain neuroscience education program as part of a one-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. Further research is needed to identify patients who will respond better to a pain neuroscience education module as part of a personalized care program.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56036,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice","volume":"74 ","pages":"Article 103176"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pain neuroscience education is not superior to spinal physiology and ergonomics education within a short multidisciplinary rehabilitation program: A randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Adenis ,&nbsp;Valérie Wieczorek ,&nbsp;Sophie Corbinau ,&nbsp;Léa Mortain ,&nbsp;André Thevenon\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.msksp.2024.103176\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>There is little evidence to suggest that one educational intervention is superior to another when associated with a rehabilitation program in the management of persistent low back pain. The objective of the present study was to compare pain neuroscience education with spine physiology and ergonomics education as part of a one-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>We conducted a randomized, controlled trial among patients having experienced persistent low back pain for at least 1 year. The patients participated in a one-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program with an educational component. The members of the experimental and control groups received pain neuroscience education and spine physiology and ergonomics education, respectively. Outcomes were assessed before the program (day 0), immediately afterwards (day 5), and on day 90 after the start of the program. The primary outcome measure was functional disability on day 90.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 88 patients were randomized. On day 90, a statistically significant mean [95% confidence interval] decrease in the level of disability was observed in the experimental (PNE) group (−3.4 [-5.0 to −1.8]). The mean [95%CI] difference versus the control group (−1.7 [-4.0 to 0.5]) was not statistically significant (p = 0.12). There were no statistically significant intergroup differences in the secondary outcome measures.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There appears to be no advantage in replacing a conventional, non-neuroscientific educational program (based on spinal physiology and ergonomics) with a pain neuroscience education program as part of a one-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. Further research is needed to identify patients who will respond better to a pain neuroscience education module as part of a personalized care program.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"74 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103176\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468781224002716\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468781224002716","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言在治疗顽固性腰背痛的康复计划中,几乎没有证据表明一种教育干预措施优于另一种。本研究的目的是比较疼痛神经科学教育与脊柱生理学和人体工程学教育,作为为期一周的多学科康复计划的一部分。这些患者参加了为期一周的多学科康复计划,其中包含教育内容。实验组和对照组的成员分别接受了疼痛神经科学教育、脊柱生理学和人体工程学教育。结果分别在项目开始前(第0天)、项目结束后(第5天)和项目开始后第90天进行评估。主要结果是第 90 天的功能障碍。在第 90 天,实验组(PNE)的残疾程度平均[95% 置信区间]显著下降(-3.4 [-5.0 至-1.8])。与对照组(-1.7 [-4.0 to 0.5])相比,平均[95%置信区间]差异无统计学意义(P = 0.12)。结论在为期一周的多学科康复计划中,用疼痛神经科学教育计划取代传统的非神经科学教育计划(基于脊柱生理学和人体工程学)似乎没有优势。还需要进一步研究,以确定哪些患者对作为个性化护理计划一部分的疼痛神经科学教育模块反应更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Pain neuroscience education is not superior to spinal physiology and ergonomics education within a short multidisciplinary rehabilitation program: A randomized controlled trial

Introduction

There is little evidence to suggest that one educational intervention is superior to another when associated with a rehabilitation program in the management of persistent low back pain. The objective of the present study was to compare pain neuroscience education with spine physiology and ergonomics education as part of a one-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program.

Method

We conducted a randomized, controlled trial among patients having experienced persistent low back pain for at least 1 year. The patients participated in a one-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program with an educational component. The members of the experimental and control groups received pain neuroscience education and spine physiology and ergonomics education, respectively. Outcomes were assessed before the program (day 0), immediately afterwards (day 5), and on day 90 after the start of the program. The primary outcome measure was functional disability on day 90.

Results

A total of 88 patients were randomized. On day 90, a statistically significant mean [95% confidence interval] decrease in the level of disability was observed in the experimental (PNE) group (−3.4 [-5.0 to −1.8]). The mean [95%CI] difference versus the control group (−1.7 [-4.0 to 0.5]) was not statistically significant (p = 0.12). There were no statistically significant intergroup differences in the secondary outcome measures.

Conclusion

There appears to be no advantage in replacing a conventional, non-neuroscientific educational program (based on spinal physiology and ergonomics) with a pain neuroscience education program as part of a one-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. Further research is needed to identify patients who will respond better to a pain neuroscience education module as part of a personalized care program.

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
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice
Musculoskeletal Science and Practice Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
152
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: Musculoskeletal Science & Practice, international journal of musculoskeletal physiotherapy, is a peer-reviewed international journal (previously Manual Therapy), publishing high quality original research, review and Masterclass articles that contribute to improving the clinical understanding of appropriate care processes for musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes articles that influence or add to the body of evidence on diagnostic and therapeutic processes, patient centered care, guidelines for musculoskeletal therapeutics and theoretical models that support developments in assessment, diagnosis, clinical reasoning and interventions.
期刊最新文献
The effectiveness of education for people with shoulder pain: A systematic review. Defining core competencies for telehealth in healthcare higher education: A Delphi study. Effects of a smartphone game to facilitate active neck movements on the incidence of neck pain among office workers: A 6-month cluster-randomized controlled trial. Validity and reliability of the Danish version of the Short Form Brief Pain Inventory. The prognostic reasoning by physiotherapists of musculoskeletal disorders: A phenomenological exploratory 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