Literature DB >> 1531554

The Distress and Risk Assessment Method. A simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome.

C J Main1, P L Wood, S Hollis, C C Spanswick, G Waddell.   

Abstract

The integration of physical and psychological assessment is frequently problematic. Psychological tests are often cumbersome and difficult to interpret. There would appear to be a need for a simple assessment method that would identify distress and help alert the clinician to the need for a more comprehensive assessment. The Distress and Risk Assessment Method is derived from a simple set of scales validated for use with patients with low-back pain. It offers a simple classification of patients into those showing no psychological distress, those at risk of developing major psychological overlay, and those clearly distressed. Four patient types can be identified on the basis of scores on two short questionnaires. The construction of the Distress and Risk Assessment Method is described and validity data (both clinical and psychological) are presented. The use of the Distress and Risk Assessment Method in the prediction of outcome of treatment is presented, and the paper concludes with general guidelines for its use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1531554     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199201000-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  90 in total

1.  Prognostic factors and treatment-related changes associated with return to work in the multimodal treatment of chronic back pain.

Authors:  A A Vendrig
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  1999-06

2.  Influence of neuroticism, catastrophizing, pain duration, and receipt of compensation on short-term response to nerve block treatment for chronic back pain.

Authors:  G Groth-Marnat; A Fletcher
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2000-08

3.  How does interoceptive awareness interact with the subjective experience of emotion? An fMRI study.

Authors:  Yuri Terasawa; Hirokata Fukushima; Satoshi Umeda
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 4.  A systematic review of bio-psychosocial risk factors for an unfavourable outcome after lumbar disc surgery.

Authors:  Jasper J den Boer; Rob A B Oostendorp; Tjemme Beems; Marten Munneke; Margreet Oerlemans; Andrea W M Evers
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-05-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment.

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Achim Elfering
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Subclassification of low back pain: a cross-country comparison.

Authors:  Evdokia V Billis; Christopher J McCarthy; Jacqueline A Oldham
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Long-term randomised comparison between a carbon fibre cage and the Cloward procedure in the cervical spine.

Authors:  Anneli Peolsson; Ludek Vavruch; Rune Hedlund
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Degenerative lumbar intervertebral instability: what is it and how does imaging contribute?

Authors:  Antonio Leone; Victor N Cassar-Pullicino; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Lorenzo Bonomo
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  [Theories and models of chronicity: on the way to a broader definition of chronic back pain].

Authors:  H Raspe; A Hüppe; C Matthis
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.107

10.  Insufficient diagnostic accuracy of a single-item questionnaire to detect psychosocial distress in temporomandibular disorder patients.

Authors:  Daniel R Reissmann; Mike T John; Levente Kriston; Oliver Schierz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 3.573

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.