Literature DB >> 11790467

Is there a right treatment for a particular patient group? Comparison of ordinary treatment, light multidisciplinary treatment, and extensive multidisciplinary treatment for long-term sick-listed employees with musculoskeletal pain.

Ellen M Håland Haldorsen1, Astrid L Grasdal, Jan Sture Skouen, Alf Erling Risa, Karsten Kronholm, Holger Ursin.   

Abstract

In general, randomized controlled studies concerning return to work have failed to demonstrate significant treatment effects for long-lasting musculoskeletal pain, and most treatments examined have not been economically beneficial. Individuals (n=654) sick-listed for at least 8 weeks with musculoskeletal pain, selected from the Norwegian mandatory sickness insurance system and volunteering to participate, were categorized into three groups differing in a prognosis score (good, medium, poor) for return to work, based on a brief, standardized screening of psychological and physiotherapy findings. They were then randomly assigned to three outpatient treatments with three different levels of intensity (ordinary treatment, light multidisciplinary, and extensive multidisciplinary treatment). The evaluation was based on 14 months follow-up data on return to work collected from social security records. The patients with good prognosis for return to work do equally well with ordinary treatment as with the two more intensive treatments. The patients with medium prognosis benefit equally from the two multidisciplinary treatments. The patients with poor prognosis receiving extensive multidisciplinary treatment returned to work at a higher rate than patients with poor prognosis receiving ordinary treatment, 55 vs. 37% (P<0.05) at 14 months. Multidisciplinary treatment is effective concerning return to work, when given to patients who are most likely to benefit from that treatment. Measures of pain or quality of life are not included in this study. The cost-benefit analysis of the economic returns of the light multidisciplinary and the extensive multidisciplinary treatment programs yields a positive net present social value of the treatment. A simple, standardized, screening instrument including only psychological and physiotherapeutic observations may be a useful clinical tool for allocating patients with musculoskeletal pain to the right level of treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11790467     DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00374-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  50 in total

1.  [Health-related quality of life (SF-36) in chronic low back pain and comorbid depression].

Authors:  C Ahrens; M Schiltenwolf; H Wang
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.107

Review 2.  Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research.

Authors:  Renée-Louise Franche; Raymond Baril; William Shaw; Michael Nicholas; Patrick Loisel
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-12

3.  Clinical prediction rule for return to work after back pain.

Authors:  Christopher Maher
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-06-07       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  Workplace interventions for workers with musculoskeletal disabilities: a descriptive review of content.

Authors:  M J Durand; N Vézina; P Loisel; R Baril; M C Richard; B Diallo
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2007-03

5.  From the clinic to the lab (and back)-a call for laboratory research to optimize cognitive behavioural treatment of pain.

Authors:  Stefaan Van Damme; David J Moore
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 6.  How well do return-to-work interventions for musculoskeletal conditions address the multicausality of work disability?

Authors:  Catherine Briand; Marie-José Durand; Louise St-Arnaud; Marc Corbière
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2008-04-08

7.  Validation of a risk factor-based intervention strategy model using data from the readiness for return to work cohort study.

Authors:  Ivan A Steenstra; Selahadin A Ibrahim; Renée-Louise Franche; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; William S Shaw; Glenn S Pransky
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2010-09

Review 8.  Vocational rehabilitation for enhancing return-to-work in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries.

Authors:  Wen-Hsuan Hou; Ching-Chi Chi; Heng-Lien Lo; Yun-Yun Chou; Ken N Kuo; Hung-Yi Chuang
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-12-06

9.  Occupational advice to help people return to work following lower limb arthroplasty: the OPAL intervention mapping study.

Authors:  Paul Baker; Carol Coole; Avril Drummond; Sayeed Khan; Catriona McDaid; Catherine Hewitt; Lucksy Kottam; Sarah Ronaldson; Elizabeth Coleman; David A McDonald; Fiona Nouri; Melanie Narayanasamy; Iain McNamara; Judith Fitch; Louise Thomson; Gerry Richardson; Amar Rangan
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.014

10.  The outcome of a functional restoration programme for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  M Sivan; B Sell; P Sell
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.568

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.