Literature DB >> 18285433

Assessing clinically meaningful change following a programme for managing chronic pain.

Keren Fisher1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify criteria for clinically meaningful change scores in commonly used measures of pain and related disability, using Goal Attainment Scaling as an external indicator of success. (2) To investigate the chances of achieving these scores following a pain management programme versus remaining on the waiting list.
DESIGN: Participants were assessed on entry to waiting list, on admission and at follow-up from the pain management programme. Three groups of Goal Attainment Scaling scores (-1.0, +1) were created from final Goal Attainment Scaling achievements. Mean scores on other measures were analysed in relation to Goal Attainment Scaling score groups by ANOVA. Differences in numbers achieving clinically meaningful changes when on the pain management programme or waiting list were compared.
SUBJECTS: Chronic musculoskeletal pain participants (N = 73) attending a rehabilitation centre, mean age (range) 44.8 (24-70) years, mean age (range) 44.8 (24-70), mean pain duration 7.7 (1-32) years. INTERVENTION: Three-week (15-day) pain management programme based on cognitive behavioural principles. MEASURES: McGill Pain Questionnaire, 0-10 Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), 5 minute walk, 1 minute sit/stand, 1 minute stair-climbing, and Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS).
RESULTS: Mean change scores differed significantly for three GAS groups and were highest in the most successful (+1) group. These scores were used to define clinically meaningful changes on the NRS (-3), ODQ (-12), walk (+87) and stairs (+14). Significantly more participants on the pain management programme achieved these scores than those on the waiting list.
CONCLUSION: Using GAS as a criterion of patient-perceived improvement enabled identification of clinically meaningful changes on some other common measures. These successfully differentiated achievement between patients on the pain management programme and those on the waiting list.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18285433     DOI: 10.1177/0269215507081928

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Rehabil        ISSN: 0269-2155            Impact factor:   3.477


  5 in total

1.  Symptoms Associated With Chronic Venous Disease in Response to a Cooling Treatment Compared to Placebo: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Teresa J Kelechi; Mary J Dooley; Martina Mueller; Mohan Madisetti; Margie A Prentice
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2018 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 1.741

2.  Collaborative care for pain results in both symptom improvement and sustained reduction of pain and depression.

Authors:  Stephen Thielke; Kathryn Corson; Steven K Dobscha
Journal:  Gen Hosp Psychiatry       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 3.238

3.  Factors involved in patients' perceptions of self-improvement after chronic pain treatment.

Authors:  Majidullah Shaikh; Eleni G Hapidou
Journal:  Can J Pain       Date:  2018-06-18

4.  Return to work coordination programmes for work disability: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Stefan Schandelmaier; Shanil Ebrahim; Susan C A Burkhardt; Wout E L de Boer; Thomas Zumbrunn; Gordon H Guyatt; Jason W Busse; Regina Kunz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-19       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Goal-oriented cognitive rehabilitation in early-stage dementia: study protocol for a multi-centre single-blind randomised controlled trial (GREAT).

Authors:  Linda Clare; Antony Bayer; Alistair Burns; Anne Corbett; Roy Jones; Martin Knapp; Michael Kopelman; Aleksandra Kudlicka; Iracema Leroi; Jan Oyebode; Jackie Pool; Bob Woods; Rhiannon Whitaker
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-05-27       Impact factor: 2.279

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.