4.7 Article

Comprehensive Self-Management for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Randomized Trial of In-Person vs. Combined In-Person and Telephone Sessions

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 104, 期 12, 页码 3004-3014

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.479

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINR
  2. NIH [R01 NR004142, P30 NR04001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Psychological and behavioral therapies are being increasingly used for symptom management in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The aims of this study were to compare two delivery modes for a comprehensive self-management (CSM) intervention, primarily by telephone vs. entirely in person, and to compare each with usual care (UC). METHODS: Adults with IBS were recruited through community advertisement. Subjects (N = 188) were randomly assigned to three groups: one in which all nine weekly CSM sessions were delivered in person, one in which six of the nine sessions were conducted over telephone, and one in which subjects received UC. Primary outcome measures were a gastrointestinal (GI) symptom score based on six symptoms from a daily diary and disease-specific quality of life (QOL). These and other outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Mixed model analyses tested for differences between the three groups in each outcome variable at the three follow-up occasions, controlling for the baseline level of each outcome. RESULTS: Both GI symptom score and QOL showed significantly greater improvement in the two CSM groups than in the UC group (P < 0.001), with the magnitude of this difference being quite similar for the three follow-up time points. The two CSM groups experienced a very similar degree of improvement, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two. CONCLUSIONS: A CSM program is efficacious whether delivered primarily by telephone or totally in person, and there is no evidence that replacing six of the in-person sessions by telephone sessions reduces the efficacy of the intervention.

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

4.7
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