葡萄牙整骨医生对治疗慢性腰痛的生物力学或生物心理社会模型的态度——一项基于横断面问卷的调查

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijosm.2022.06.001
Mónica Dinis , Catarina Silva , Ricardo Cruz , Jorge Esteves , Alexandre Nunes
{"title":"葡萄牙整骨医生对治疗慢性腰痛的生物力学或生物心理社会模型的态度——一项基于横断面问卷的调查","authors":"Mónica Dinis ,&nbsp;Catarina Silva ,&nbsp;Ricardo Cruz ,&nbsp;Jorge Esteves ,&nbsp;Alexandre Nunes","doi":"10.1016/j.ijosm.2022.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span>This study investigated the Portuguese Osteopaths attitudes towards a biomechanical or biopsychosocial approach of care </span>in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey of Portuguese registered osteopaths was composed using sociodemographic determinants, the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and Pain Attitudes and Beliefs for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT). The HC-PAIRS assesses the attitudes and beliefs about the functional expectations of patients with cLBP, and the PABS-PT assesses the dominant model of care.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Portuguese registered osteopaths (n = 103) had mean PABS-PT subscale scores of 29.6 ± 7.7 [CI95% 28.12–31.14] (biomechanical) and 22.9 ± 5.3 [CI95% 21.88–23.94] (biopsychosocial). The mean HC-PAIRS total score was 52.4 ± 9.0 [CI95% 50.66–54.16]. There was a strong and positive correlation between the HC-PAIRS and the PABS-PT biomechanical subscale (n (103) = 0.55, p &lt; 0.001, and in PABS-PT a negative correlation between the biomechanical and biopsychosocial subscale scores (n(103) = -0.21, p = 0.028).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Portuguese osteopaths tend to adopt a biomechanical model of care instead of a biopsychosocial model in the management of patients with chronic low back pain. They seem to agree that chronic low back pain was due entirely to tissue damage, indicating strong biomechanical beliefs about the pain that may ultimately influence their clinical decisions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51068,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Portuguese osteopaths' attitudes towards a biomechanical or biopsychosocial model in the approach of chronic low back pain – A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey\",\"authors\":\"Mónica Dinis ,&nbsp;Catarina Silva ,&nbsp;Ricardo Cruz ,&nbsp;Jorge Esteves ,&nbsp;Alexandre Nunes\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijosm.2022.06.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p><span>This study investigated the Portuguese Osteopaths attitudes towards a biomechanical or biopsychosocial approach of care </span>in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey of Portuguese registered osteopaths was composed using sociodemographic determinants, the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and Pain Attitudes and Beliefs for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT). The HC-PAIRS assesses the attitudes and beliefs about the functional expectations of patients with cLBP, and the PABS-PT assesses the dominant model of care.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Portuguese registered osteopaths (n = 103) had mean PABS-PT subscale scores of 29.6 ± 7.7 [CI95% 28.12–31.14] (biomechanical) and 22.9 ± 5.3 [CI95% 21.88–23.94] (biopsychosocial). The mean HC-PAIRS total score was 52.4 ± 9.0 [CI95% 50.66–54.16]. There was a strong and positive correlation between the HC-PAIRS and the PABS-PT biomechanical subscale (n (103) = 0.55, p &lt; 0.001, and in PABS-PT a negative correlation between the biomechanical and biopsychosocial subscale scores (n(103) = -0.21, p = 0.028).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Portuguese osteopaths tend to adopt a biomechanical model of care instead of a biopsychosocial model in the management of patients with chronic low back pain. They seem to agree that chronic low back pain was due entirely to tissue damage, indicating strong biomechanical beliefs about the pain that may ultimately influence their clinical decisions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174606892200044X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174606892200044X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:本研究调查葡萄牙整骨医生对慢性腰痛(cLBP)患者采用生物力学或生物心理社会护理方法的态度。方法采用社会人口统计学决定因素、卫生保健提供者疼痛和损害关系量表(HC-PAIRS)和物理治疗师疼痛态度和信念(PABS-PT)对葡萄牙注册整骨治疗师进行横断面问卷调查。HC-PAIRS评估了cLBP患者对功能期望的态度和信念,而PABS-PT评估了主要的护理模式。结果103名葡萄牙注册整骨师的pbs - pt亚量表平均生物力学评分为29.6±7.7分(CI95% 28.12-31.14分),生物心理社会评分为22.9±5.3分(CI95% 21.88-23.94分)。平均HC-PAIRS总分为52.4±9.0 [CI95% 50.66-54.16]。HC-PAIRS与PABS-PT生物力学分量表之间存在强正相关(n (103) = 0.55, p <在PABS-PT中,生物力学和生物心理社会亚量表得分呈负相关(n(103) = -0.21, p = 0.028)。结论葡萄牙整骨医师在治疗慢性腰痛患者时倾向于采用生物力学治疗模式而非生物心理社会治疗模式。他们似乎同意慢性腰痛完全是由组织损伤引起的,这表明强烈的生物力学信念可能最终影响他们的临床决策。
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
The Portuguese osteopaths' attitudes towards a biomechanical or biopsychosocial model in the approach of chronic low back pain – A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey

Objective

This study investigated the Portuguese Osteopaths attitudes towards a biomechanical or biopsychosocial approach of care in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP).

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey of Portuguese registered osteopaths was composed using sociodemographic determinants, the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and Pain Attitudes and Beliefs for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT). The HC-PAIRS assesses the attitudes and beliefs about the functional expectations of patients with cLBP, and the PABS-PT assesses the dominant model of care.

Results

Portuguese registered osteopaths (n = 103) had mean PABS-PT subscale scores of 29.6 ± 7.7 [CI95% 28.12–31.14] (biomechanical) and 22.9 ± 5.3 [CI95% 21.88–23.94] (biopsychosocial). The mean HC-PAIRS total score was 52.4 ± 9.0 [CI95% 50.66–54.16]. There was a strong and positive correlation between the HC-PAIRS and the PABS-PT biomechanical subscale (n (103) = 0.55, p < 0.001, and in PABS-PT a negative correlation between the biomechanical and biopsychosocial subscale scores (n(103) = -0.21, p = 0.028).

Conclusions

Portuguese osteopaths tend to adopt a biomechanical model of care instead of a biopsychosocial model in the management of patients with chronic low back pain. They seem to agree that chronic low back pain was due entirely to tissue damage, indicating strong biomechanical beliefs about the pain that may ultimately influence their clinical decisions.

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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.80%
发文量
42
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine is a peer-reviewed journal that provides for the publication of high quality research articles and review papers that are as broad as the many disciplines that influence and underpin the principles and practice of osteopathic medicine. Particular emphasis is given to basic science research, clinical epidemiology and health social science in relation to osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine. The Editorial Board encourages submission of articles based on both quantitative and qualitative research designs. The Editorial Board also aims to provide a forum for discourse and debate on any aspect of osteopathy and neuromusculoskeletal medicine with the aim of critically evaluating existing practices in regard to the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with neuromusculoskeletal disorders and somatic dysfunction. All manuscripts submitted to the IJOM are subject to a blinded review process. The categories currently available for publication include reports of original research, review papers, commentaries and articles related to clinical practice, including case reports. Further details can be found in the IJOM Instructions for Authors. Manuscripts are accepted for publication with the understanding that no substantial part has been, or will be published elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Is visceral osteopathy therapy effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis Professional skill priorities: Comparison views of osteopathy industry professionals and osteopathy students Perceived benefits and limitations of game-based simulation education by osteopathy students in early clinical training: A preliminary mixed methods study Primary and secondary prevention of musculoskeletal pain and disability in chiropractic, osteopathy, and physiotherapy: A scoping review Chronic pain, complexity and a suggested role for the osteopathic profession
×
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