Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
PLoS One ; 17(10): e0276326, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36264988

RESUMO

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Exercise-based rehabilitation is a conservative management approach for individuals with low back pain. However, adherence rates for conservative management are often low and the reasons for this are not well described. The objective of this study was to evaluate predictors of adherence and patient-reported reasons for non-adherence after ceasing a supervised exercise-based rehabilitation program in individuals with low back pain. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: Data was retrospectively analyzed from 5 rehabilitation clinics utilizing a standardized exercise-based rehabilitation program. Baseline demographics, diagnosis and symptom specific features, visit number, and discontinuation profiles were quantified for 2,243 patients who underwent the program. RESULTS: Forty-three percent (43%) of participants were adherent to the program, with the majority (31.7%) discontinuing treatment prior to completion due to logistic and accessibility issues. Another 13.2% discontinued prior to the prescribed duration due to clinically significant improvements in pain and/or disability without formal discharge evaluation, whereas 8.3% did not continue due to lack of improvement. Finally, 6.0% were discharged for related and unrelated medical reasons including surgery. Individuals diagnosed with disc pathology were most likely to be adherent to the program. LIMITATIONS: This study was a retrospective chart review with missing data for some variables. Future studies with a prospective design would increase quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individuals prescribed an in-clinic exercise-based rehabilitation program are non-adherent. Patient diagnosis was the most important predictor of adherence. For those who were not adherent, important barriers include personal issues, insufficient insurance authorization and lack of geographic accessibility.


Assuntos
Dor Lombar , Humanos , Dor Lombar/diagnóstico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Cooperação do Paciente , Terapia por Exercício , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(3): e22548, 2021 03 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33734088

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The recent onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to reduce barriers to access physical therapy and associated care through the use of web-based programs and telehealth for those seeking treatment for low back pain (LBP). Despite this need, few studies have compared the effectiveness of clinic-based versus web-based or telehealth services. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of clinic-based multidisciplinary therapy in an integrated practice unit (C-IPU) model with online integrated multidisciplinary therapy (O-IPU) in individuals undergoing conservative care for LBP. METHODS: A total of 1090 participants were prospectively recruited to participate in a clinical trial registry (NCT04081896) through the SpineZone rehabilitation IPU program. All participants provided informed consent. Participants were allocated to the C-IPU (N=988) or O-IPU (N=102) groups based on their personal preferences. The C-IPU program consisted of a high-intensity machine-based core muscle resistance training program, whereas the O-IPU program consisted of therapist-directed home core strengthening exercises through a web-based platform. Changes in LBP symptom severity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), goal achievement (Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and frequency of opioid use were compared between the C-IPU and O-IPU groups using multivariate linear regression modeling adjusted for age, gender, treatment number, program duration, and baseline pain and disability. RESULTS: Approximately 93.03% (1014/1090) of the participants completed their recommended programs, with no group differences in dropout rates (P=.78). The C-IPU group showed greater pain relief (P<.001) and reductions in disability (P=.002) than the O-IPU group, whereas the O-IPU group reported greater improvements in goal achievement (P<.001). Both programs resulted in reduced opioid use frequency, with 19.0% (188/988) and 21.5% (22/102) of participants reporting cessation of opioid use for C-IPU and O-IPU programs, respectively, leaving only 5.59% (61/1090) of participants reporting opioid use at the end of their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both in-clinic and web-based multidisciplinary programs are beneficial in reducing pain, disability, and opioid use and in improving goal achievement. The differences between these self-selected groups shed light on patient characteristics, which require further investigation and could help clinicians optimize these programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04081896; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04081896.


Assuntos
Terapia por Exercício/métodos , Dor Lombar/reabilitação , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Internet , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...