| 1. |
- Linton, Steven J., et al.
(författare)
-
A randomized controlled trial of exposure in vivo for patients with spinal pain reporting fear of work-related activities
- 2008
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Pain. - : Elsevier. - 1090-3801 .- 1532-2149. ; 12:6, s. 722-730
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Pain-related fear is related to disability in persistent pain conditions. Exposure treatment has been reported to be of great benefit in replicated single case experiments.AIM: To evaluate the effects of exposure in vivo on fear and function in patients with persistent pain and work disability.METHOD: We recruited 46 patients suffering from long-term back pain and reduced function, who also were deemed fearful according to standardized measures. Participants were randomized into either an exposure plus usual treatment or waiting list control plus usual treatment group. After the waiting period the control group crossed over and received the exposure treatment.RESULTS: Between group comparisons showed a significantly better result for the exposure group on function, but not for fear or pain and effect sizes were modest (function=.6; fear=.4; pain=.1). When the control group crossed over to treatment significant treatment effects were noted for fear and function. For all patients treated, the pre to post-treatment effect sizes were large (function=.7; fear=1.1; pain=.9). There were 12 dropouts (8 in exposure and 4 in the control) during the first treatment phase and an additional 4 when the control group crossed over to exposure.CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a group receiving usual treatment and waiting for exposure, the exposure in vivo group demonstrated a significantly larger improvement on function. Overall exposure had moderate effects on function, fear and pain intensity. We conclude that exposure may be important in treatment, but is not recommended as a "stand alone" adjunct to usual treatment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Overmeer, Thomas, 1960-, et al.
(författare)
-
Do evidence-based guidelines have an impact in primary care? : A cross-sectional study of Swedish physicians and physiotherapists
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Spine. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0362-2436 .- 1528-1159. ; 30:1, s. 146-151
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Study Design. A cross-sectional study of physicians and physiotherapists in primary care. Objectives. To survey how familiar clinicians were with evidence-based guidelines for back pain and their opinion about their clinical usefulness and to compare self-reported practice behavior with the guidelines. Summary of Background Data. Guidelines, based on empirical evidence, are meant to ensure that patients get the most effective treatment. These evidence-based guidelines should steer clinical praxis, but clinicians may not read, let alone heed, them. Methods. Using a questionnaire, the authors surveyed all physicians and physiotherapists in primary health care in Örebro County, Sweden (N = 235). Results. Forty-two percent of the physicians and 37% of the physiotherapists were unfamiliar with the content of the guidelines, and 40% of the physicians and 25% of the physiotherapists were unfamiliar with the concept of 'red flags.' Less than half of the clinicians, 47%, were familiar both with the content of the guidelines and the concept of red flags. Their opinion about the guidelines showed that 54% of the physicians and 56% of the physiotherapists agreed that the guidelines were useful in clinical praxis. Concerning the self-reported practice behavior, the majority indicated that they followed the key points in the guidelines. Conclusions. A relatively large proportion of clinicians were unfamiliar with the content of evidence-based guidelines and/or with the concept of red flags. The process of implementing research into clinical practice is in need of an overhaul, and the impact of guidelines on clinical practice may be questioned.
|
|
| 3. |
- Overmeer, Thomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Do physical therapists change their beliefs, attitudes,knowledge, skills and behaviour after a biopsychosocially orientated university course?
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice. - Oxford : Blackwell. - 1356-1294 .- 1365-2753. ; 15:4, s. 724-732
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim The aim of this study is to examine the effects of an 8-day university-based training course, aimed at identifying and addressing psychosocial prognostic factors during physiotherapy treatment, in shifting therapists towards a more biopsychosocial orientation as measured by changes in beliefs/attitudes, knowledge, skills and behaviour.MethodWe combined a randomized controlled trail with a pre-post design. Forty-two physiotherapists applied for a university-accredited training course designed to enhance knowledge and management of psychosocial factors in their practice with patients suffering from musculoskeletal pain. The course participants were randomized either to receiving the course or to a waiting list for training. Attitudes and beliefs towards, and knowledge of psychosocial factors, patient vignettes and a video of an imaginary patient were tested before and after training. The patients of the course participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire with background questions at treatment start. The patients also received a questionnaire about the physical therapists' behaviour and patient satisfaction 6 weeks after treatment start.ResultsThe results show that physical therapists' attitudes and believes became more biopsychosocially and less biomedically orientated, they were less convinced that pain justifies disability and limitation of activities, and their knowledge and skills on psychosocial risk factors increased after a university-accredited training course. Yet despite these changes their patients perceived their practice behaviour before and after the course as similar and were equally satisfied with their treatment and treatment result.ConclusionA course, which enhanced biopsychosocial attitudes and beliefs, as well as increased such knowledge and skills did not change the way patients perceived their physical therapists. A future question is whether it improves patient outcome.
|
|
