BackgroundThe concept of shared-decision-making is a well-established approach to increase the participation of patients in medical decisions. Using lifetime risk or time-to-event (TTE) formats has been increasingly suggested as they might have advantages, e.g. in younger patients, to better show consequences of unhealthy behaviour. In this study, the most-popular ten-year risk illustration in the decision-aid-software arribaTM (emoticons), is compared within a randomised trial to a new-developed TTE illustration, which is based on a Markov model.MethodsThirty-two General Practitioners (GPs) took part in the study. A total of 304 patients were recruited and counseled by their GPs with arribaTM, and randomized to either the emoticons or the TTE illustration, followed by a patient questionnaire to figure out the degree of shared-decision-making (PEF-FB9, German questionnaire to measure the participation in the shared decision-making process, primary outcome), as well as the decisional conflict, perceived risk, accessibility and the degree of information, which are all secondary outcomes.ResultsRegarding our primary outcome PEF-FB9 the new TTE illustration is not inferior compared to the well-established emoticons taking the whole study population into account. Furthermore, the non-inferiority of the innovative TTE could be confirmed for all secondary outcome variables. The explorative analysis indicates even advantages in younger patients (below 46 years of age).ConclusionThe TTE format seems to be as useful as the well-established emoticons. For certain patient populations, especially younger patients, the TTE may be even superior to demonstrate a cardiovascular risk at early stages. Our results suggest that time-to-event illustrations should be considered for current decision support tools covering cardiovascular prevention.Trial registrationThe study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and at the WHO International Clinical Trials Register Platform (ICTRP, ID DRKS00004933); registered 2 February 2016 (retrospectively registered).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0393-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundDue to the heterogeneous nature of chronic low back pain (CLBP), it is necessary to identify patient groups and evaluate treatments within these groups. We aimed to identify groups of patients with CLBP in the primary care setting.MethodsWe performed a k-means cluster analysis on a large data set (n = 634) of primary care patients with CLBP. Variables of sociodemographic data, pain characteristics, psychological status (i.e., depression, anxiety, somatization), and the patient resources of resilience and coping strategies were included.ResultsWe found three clusters that can be characterized as “pensioners with age-associated pain caused by degenerative diseases”, “middle-aged patients with high mental distress and poor coping resources”, and “middle-aged patients who are less pain-affected and better positioned with regard to their mental health”.ConclusionsOur results supported current knowledge concerning groups of CLBP patients in primary care. In particular, we identified a group that was most disabled and distressed, and which was mainly characterized by psychological variables. As shown in our study, pain-related coping strategies and resilience were low in these patients and might be addressed in differentiating treatment strategies. Future studies should focus on the identification of this group in order to achieve effective treatment allocation.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register DRKS00003123
BackgroundUtilizing psychological resources when dealing with chronic low back pain might aid the prevention of disability. The observational study at hand examined the longitudinal impact of resilience and coping resources on disability in addition to established risk factors.MethodsFour hundred eighty four patients with chronic low back pain (>3 months) were recruited in primary care practices and followed up for one year. Resilience, coping, depression, somatization, pain and demographic variables were measured at baseline. At follow-up (participation rate 89%), data on disability was collected. We first calculated bivariate correlations of all the predictors with each other and with follow-up disability. We then used a multiple regression to evaluate the impact of all the predictors on disability together.ResultsMore than half of the followed up sample showed a high degree of disability at baseline (53.7%) and had suffered for more than 10 years from pain (50.4%). Besides gender all of the predictors were bivariately associated with follow-up disability. However in the main analysis (multiple regression), disability at follow up was only predicted by baseline disability, age and somatization. There was no relationship between resilience and disability, nor between coping resources and disability.ConclusionsAlthough it is known that there are cross-sectional relationships between resilience/coping resources and disability we were not able to replicate it in the multiple regression. This can have several reasons: a) the majority of patients in our sample were much more disabled and suffered for a longer time than in other studies. Therefore our results might be limited to this specific population and resilience and coping resources might still have a protective influence in acute or subacute populations. b) We used a rather broad operationalization of resilience. There is emerging evidence that focusing on more concrete sub facets like (pain) self-efficacy and acceptance might be more beneficial.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register, DRKS00003123 (June 28th 2011).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1482-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) at primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to identify predictors for transition from localized CLBP to chronic widespread pain in general practice. In contrast to the typically investigated risk factors, this study also focuses intensively on protective factors, which decrease the probability of chronic widespread pain. For this, we investigated the resources resilience and coping strategies, which are suspected as potential protective factors for incident chronic pain syndromes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In primary care, about a quarter of patients with CLBP experience chronic widespread pain (CWP). METHODS: Patients experiencing localized CLBP were included and evaluated after a 6-and 12-month follow-up period regarding the development of CWP. Potential risk factors (sociodemographic data, pain characteristics, depression, anxiety, somatization), protective factors (resilience, coping strategies), and sample characteristics were assessed at baseline. Predictor identification was done by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The 1-year incidence for the onset of CWP among patients with CLBP was 23.8%. We identified the 3 risk factors, female sex, long duration of back pain, and a high rate of psychosomatic symptoms, for the onset of CWP among patients with CLBP. Coping resources and resilience had no impact on the transition from CLBP to CWP. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that CWP is no independent entity but rather a particularly negative occurrence on a continuum of chronic pain. Processes of somatization play a major role in the development of this extreme. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2. Originally published at: Viniol, Annika; Jegan, Nikita; Brugger, Markus; Leonhardt, Corinna; Barth, Jürgen; Baum, Erika; Becker, Annette; Strauch, Konstantin (2015). Even worse -risk factors and protective factors for transition from chronic localized low back pain to chronic widespread pain in general practice. Spine, 40(15):E890-E899.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.