Literature DB >> 10908528

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain among working age adults.

K Karjalainen1, A Malmivaara, M van Tulder, R Roine, M Jauhiainen, H Hurri, B Koes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation programs are widely applied for chronic low back pain patients. The biopsychosocial approach for low back pain could also be considered to prevent chronicity by carrying out the rehabilitation if the acute pain is prolonged. Nevertheless multidisciplinary treatment programmes are often laborious and long processes and require good collaboration between the patient, the rehabilitation team and the work place. By workplace visits and close relationship with occupational health care one might expect results in terms of patients working ability.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain among working age adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewed studies for this structured Cochrane review were identified from electronic bibliographic databases, the Science Citation Index, reference checking and consulting experts in the rehabilitation field. The original search was planned and performed for more broad area of musculoskeletal disorders. Trials on subacute low back pain were separated afterwards. SELECTION CRITERIA: From all references found in our original search we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Trials had to assess the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for working age patients suffering from subacute low back pain (more than 4 weeks but less than 3 months). The rehabilitation program was required to be multidisciplinary, i.e.; it had to consist of a physician's consultation plus either a psychological, social or vocational intervention, or a combination of these. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four blinded reviewers selected the randomized controlled trials and controlled trials that met the specified inclusion criteria. Two experts in the field of rehabilitation evaluated the clinical relevance and applicability of the findings of the selected studies to actual clinical use. Two other blinded reviewers extracted the data and assessed the main results and the methodological quality of the studies using standardized forms. Finally, a qualitative analysis was performed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. MAIN
RESULTS: After screening 1808 abstracts, and the references of 65 reviews, we found only 2 relevant studies that satisfied our criteria on subacute low back pain. They were both considered to be methodologically low quality randomized controlled trials. The clinical relevance of included studies was sufficient. The level of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation was moderate on subacute low back pain showing that multidisciplinary rehabilitation which includes workplace visit or more comprehensive occupational health care intervention helps patients to return to work faster, makes sick leaves less and alleviates subjective disability. REVIEWER'S
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is moderate evidence of positive effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain and workplace visit increases the effectiveness. But because this evidence is based on the trials that had some methodological shortcomings and several expensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes are commonly used for common subacute low back problems, there is an obvious need for high quality trials in this field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10908528     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  6 in total

1.  Clinician's Commentary on Cutforth et al.(1).

Authors:  Judi Hunter; Ruth Dubin
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 1.037

2.  A Clinical Trial Comparing Tapering Doses of Buprenorphine with Steady Doses for Chronic Pain and Co-existent Opioid Addiction.

Authors:  Richard D Blondell; Lisham Ashrafioun; Christina M Dambra; Elisa M Foschio; Amy L Zielinski; Daniel M Salcedo
Journal:  J Addict Med       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.702

3.  Digital Treatment of Back Pain versus Standard of Care: The Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial, Rise-uP.

Authors:  Janosch A Priebe; Katharina K Haas; Leida F Moreno Sanchez; Karin Schoefmann; Daniel A Utpadel-Fischler; Paul Stockert; Reinhard Thoma; Christine Schiessl; Linda Kerkemeyer; Volker Amelung; Siegfried Jedamzik; Jan Reichmann; Ursula Marschall; Thomas R Toelle
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 3.133

4.  Evaluation of the effect of co-financing on collaboration between health care, social services and social insurance in Sweden.

Authors:  Eva-Lisa Hultberg; Knut Lönnroth; Peter Allebeck
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2002-10-24       Impact factor: 5.120

5.  Effectiveness of three interventions for secondary prevention of low back pain in the occupational health setting - a randomised controlled trial with a natural course control.

Authors:  J Rantonen; J Karppinen; A Vehtari; S Luoto; E Viikari-Juntura; M Hupli; A Malmivaara; S Taimela
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  An interdisciplinary clinical practice model for the management of low-back pain in primary care: the CLIP project.

Authors:  Stéphane Poitras; Michel Rossignol; Clermont Dionne; Michel Tousignant; Manon Truchon; Bertrand Arsenault; Pierre Allard; Manon Coté; Alain Neveu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2008-04-21       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.