4.6 Article

Self-management intervention for chronic pain in older adults: A randomised controlled trial

期刊

PAIN
卷 154, 期 6, 页码 824-835

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.02.009

关键词

Chronic pain; Older adults; CBT-based pain self-management; Randomised trial

资金

  1. Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council [AHMAC PDR 2005/08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared an outpatient pain self-management (PSM) program, using cognitive-behavioural therapy and exercises, with 2 control conditions in 141 chronic pain patients aged > 65 years. Results immediately posttreatment indicated that relative to the Exercise-Attention Control (EAC) group, the PSM group was significantly improved on measures of pain distress, disability, mood, unhelpful pain beliefs, and functional reach. The mean effect size for these gains was 0.52 (range: 0.44-0.68). By 1-month follow-up, relative to the EAC group, the PSM group remained better on most measures. At the 1-month follow-up, relative to a Waiting List (usual care) (WL) group, the PSM group was significantly improved on measures of pain distress, disability, and unhelpful pain beliefs. The mean effect size for these variables was 0.69 (range: 0.56-0.83). Relative to the WL group, the EAC group made no significant gains on any of the measured variables. At 1-month follow-up, the mean proportion of reliably improved cases (across outcome variables) was 41% (range: 16-60%) for the PSM group, twice that of those who met this criterion in the 2 control conditions (and this difference was statistically significant). Similarly, significantly more (44%) of the PSM group (vs 22% and 20% for the control groups) achieved a clinically significant improvement on pain disability. In the short term at least, cognitive-behavioural therapy-based PSM was more effective than exercises and usual care. (C) 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据