一项服务评估,旨在研究使用视频会议技术提供的慢性疼痛管理计划与面对面服务相比的效果。

IF 1.3 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY British Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-11-24 DOI:10.1177/20494637221135125
Deborah Joy, Annie Caddle
{"title":"一项服务评估,旨在研究使用视频会议技术提供的慢性疼痛管理计划与面对面服务相比的效果。","authors":"Deborah Joy, Annie Caddle","doi":"10.1177/20494637221135125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Covid-19 pandemic required rapid substitution of in-person Pain Management Programmes (PMP) delivery with delivery via videoconferencing technologies (VCT). No prior published VCT-PMP effectiveness findings were found, so an evaluation was conducted to explore effectiveness of this method and to compare psychometric outcomes with pre-pandemic, in-person- PMPs, delivered in routine clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were routinely attending PMPs. A consecutive series of six in-person-PMPs (<i>n</i> = 61) immediately prior to the pandemic were compared with the first series of six VCT-PMPs (<i>n</i> = 64) delivered in the same services. A within-subjects comparison of clinical outcomes (pre-post for VCT-PMP and in-person PMP) and a between-subjects comparison of delivery type was conducted (two-way mixed ANOVA). Reliable change indices examined reliable improvements and deteriorations by delivery type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both PMP delivery format groups made significant improvements in anxiety, depression, pain self-efficacy, chronic pain acceptance and pain catastrophising. No significant difference was found between VCT-PMP and in-person-PMP on each of the measures. Reliable change indices indicated similar levels of improvement and deterioration with each delivery format with improvements far outweighing deteriorations. Attrition was greater in the VCT format (33%) versus in-person-PMP (18%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study indicates that meaningful change as measured by standard psychometric questionnaires can occur in PMPs delivered via VCT and appear broadly equivalent to that achieved through in-person delivery. Physical performance outcomes such as quality and amount of movement were not measured or explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":46585,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Pain","volume":"17 2","pages":"142-151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10088418/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A service evaluation to examine the effectiveness of chronic pain management programmes delivered using video conferencing technology compared to in-person.\",\"authors\":\"Deborah Joy, Annie Caddle\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20494637221135125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Covid-19 pandemic required rapid substitution of in-person Pain Management Programmes (PMP) delivery with delivery via videoconferencing technologies (VCT). No prior published VCT-PMP effectiveness findings were found, so an evaluation was conducted to explore effectiveness of this method and to compare psychometric outcomes with pre-pandemic, in-person- PMPs, delivered in routine clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were routinely attending PMPs. A consecutive series of six in-person-PMPs (<i>n</i> = 61) immediately prior to the pandemic were compared with the first series of six VCT-PMPs (<i>n</i> = 64) delivered in the same services. A within-subjects comparison of clinical outcomes (pre-post for VCT-PMP and in-person PMP) and a between-subjects comparison of delivery type was conducted (two-way mixed ANOVA). Reliable change indices examined reliable improvements and deteriorations by delivery type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both PMP delivery format groups made significant improvements in anxiety, depression, pain self-efficacy, chronic pain acceptance and pain catastrophising. No significant difference was found between VCT-PMP and in-person-PMP on each of the measures. Reliable change indices indicated similar levels of improvement and deterioration with each delivery format with improvements far outweighing deteriorations. Attrition was greater in the VCT format (33%) versus in-person-PMP (18%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study indicates that meaningful change as measured by standard psychometric questionnaires can occur in PMPs delivered via VCT and appear broadly equivalent to that achieved through in-person delivery. Physical performance outcomes such as quality and amount of movement were not measured or explored.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"17 2\",\"pages\":\"142-151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10088418/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637221135125\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/11/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637221135125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:Covid-19 大流行要求通过视频会议技术(VCT)迅速取代面对面的疼痛管理计划(PMP)。此前未发现任何公开发表的 VCT-PMP 有效性研究结果,因此我们进行了一项评估,以探讨这种方法的有效性,并将心理测量结果与大流行前在常规临床环境中提供的面对面 PMP 进行比较:方法:参加者都是定期参加 PMP 的人员。大流行前连续进行的六次面对面 PMP(n = 61)与在相同服务机构进行的第一次六次 VCT-PMP (n = 64)进行了比较。对临床结果(VCT-PMP 和面对面 PMP 的事前-事后)进行了受试者内比较,并对提供类型进行了受试者间比较(双向混合方差分析)。可靠变化指数检查了不同实施类型的可靠改进和恶化情况:结果:两种 PMP 施教形式组在焦虑、抑郁、疼痛自我效能感、慢性疼痛接受度和疼痛灾难化方面均有显著改善。VCT-PMP 和面对面 PMP 在各项指标上没有发现明显差异。可靠的变化指数表明,每种实施形式的改善和恶化程度相似,改善程度远远大于恶化程度。VCT(33%)与面对面 PMP(18%)相比,流失率更高:这项研究表明,以标准心理测量问卷衡量,通过 VCT 提供的 PMP 可以产生有意义的变化,而且似乎与通过面对面提供的 PMP 大致相当。没有对运动质量和运动量等身体表现结果进行测量或探讨。
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
A service evaluation to examine the effectiveness of chronic pain management programmes delivered using video conferencing technology compared to in-person.

Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic required rapid substitution of in-person Pain Management Programmes (PMP) delivery with delivery via videoconferencing technologies (VCT). No prior published VCT-PMP effectiveness findings were found, so an evaluation was conducted to explore effectiveness of this method and to compare psychometric outcomes with pre-pandemic, in-person- PMPs, delivered in routine clinical settings.

Methods: Participants were routinely attending PMPs. A consecutive series of six in-person-PMPs (n = 61) immediately prior to the pandemic were compared with the first series of six VCT-PMPs (n = 64) delivered in the same services. A within-subjects comparison of clinical outcomes (pre-post for VCT-PMP and in-person PMP) and a between-subjects comparison of delivery type was conducted (two-way mixed ANOVA). Reliable change indices examined reliable improvements and deteriorations by delivery type.

Results: Both PMP delivery format groups made significant improvements in anxiety, depression, pain self-efficacy, chronic pain acceptance and pain catastrophising. No significant difference was found between VCT-PMP and in-person-PMP on each of the measures. Reliable change indices indicated similar levels of improvement and deterioration with each delivery format with improvements far outweighing deteriorations. Attrition was greater in the VCT format (33%) versus in-person-PMP (18%).

Conclusion: This study indicates that meaningful change as measured by standard psychometric questionnaires can occur in PMPs delivered via VCT and appear broadly equivalent to that achieved through in-person delivery. Physical performance outcomes such as quality and amount of movement were not measured or explored.

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
'I want to know that it's worth me attending': A qualitative analysis of consumers' decisions not to attend their chronic pain group education session. Patient experience of discharge opioid analgesia and care provision following spine surgery: A mixed methods study. Psychedelics and chronic pain: self-reported outcomes on changed substance use patterns and health following naturalistic psychedelic use. Chronic pain as a long-term burden for veterans. Social prescribing for adults with chronic pain in the U.K.: a rapid review.
×
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