为探索医护人员疼痛与损伤关系量表的使用情况而进行的范围界定审查。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
PM&R Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1002/pmrj.13186
Ryan D Muller, Alec Schielke, Jordan A Gliedt, Jesse Cooper, Shae Martinez, Andreas Eklund, Katherine A Pohlman
{"title":"为探索医护人员疼痛与损伤关系量表的使用情况而进行的范围界定审查。","authors":"Ryan D Muller, Alec Schielke, Jordan A Gliedt, Jesse Cooper, Shae Martinez, Andreas Eklund, Katherine A Pohlman","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.13186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patients' interactions with health care providers influence back pain-related outcomes. The Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) is an instrument that assesses providers' attitudes and beliefs about patients with persistent back pain, with lower scores implying that persistent pain does not indicate disability or limitation of activities. This scoping review aims to explore the extent of research involving the HC-PAIRS.</p><p><strong>Literature survey: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and PEDro databases were searched from inception to April 2022.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Extracted HC-PAIRS scores were standardized to 15-item scores and categorized by profession, student or professional status, and pre/post-educational intervention to evaluate scores. Psychometric properties and educational interventions of the HC-PAIRS were described.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening, 51 studies representing 10,416 participants were included. Student and professional scores were investigated in 24 and 29 studies, respectively. Twenty-one studies included educational interventions, with heterogenous follow-up. Psychometric properties of the HC-PAIRS were assessed in 10 studies and demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. The overall baseline mean score among all participants was 55.34 (95% CI: 53.54-57.14) (students: 56.54 [56.54-60.87]; professionals: 51.67 [49.08-54.27]). Nurses (61.99 [55.66-68.31]) and non-health care professionals (65.30 [57.33-73.28]) had the highest overall baseline mean scores, whereas chiropractors (51.69 [33.73-69.66]), MDs/PAs (52.64 [47.27-58.00]), physical therapists (53.42 [50.67-56.17]), and exercise professionals (57.36 [49.39-65.33]) had lower scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The HC-PAIRS has been used across many disciplines in both students and professionals and demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. Professionals commonly treating back pain had lower HC-PAIRS scores. Future research could benefit from standardization of interventions and timing of follow-up assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":20354,"journal":{"name":"PM&R","volume":" ","pages":"1248-1263"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review to explore the use of the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan D Muller, Alec Schielke, Jordan A Gliedt, Jesse Cooper, Shae Martinez, Andreas Eklund, Katherine A Pohlman\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pmrj.13186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patients' interactions with health care providers influence back pain-related outcomes. The Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) is an instrument that assesses providers' attitudes and beliefs about patients with persistent back pain, with lower scores implying that persistent pain does not indicate disability or limitation of activities. This scoping review aims to explore the extent of research involving the HC-PAIRS.</p><p><strong>Literature survey: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and PEDro databases were searched from inception to April 2022.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Extracted HC-PAIRS scores were standardized to 15-item scores and categorized by profession, student or professional status, and pre/post-educational intervention to evaluate scores. Psychometric properties and educational interventions of the HC-PAIRS were described.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening, 51 studies representing 10,416 participants were included. Student and professional scores were investigated in 24 and 29 studies, respectively. Twenty-one studies included educational interventions, with heterogenous follow-up. Psychometric properties of the HC-PAIRS were assessed in 10 studies and demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. The overall baseline mean score among all participants was 55.34 (95% CI: 53.54-57.14) (students: 56.54 [56.54-60.87]; professionals: 51.67 [49.08-54.27]). Nurses (61.99 [55.66-68.31]) and non-health care professionals (65.30 [57.33-73.28]) had the highest overall baseline mean scores, whereas chiropractors (51.69 [33.73-69.66]), MDs/PAs (52.64 [47.27-58.00]), physical therapists (53.42 [50.67-56.17]), and exercise professionals (57.36 [49.39-65.33]) had lower scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The HC-PAIRS has been used across many disciplines in both students and professionals and demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. Professionals commonly treating back pain had lower HC-PAIRS scores. Future research could benefit from standardization of interventions and timing of follow-up assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PM&R\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1248-1263\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PM&R\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13186\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PM&R","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13186","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:患者与医疗服务提供者之间的互动会影响背痛相关的治疗效果。医疗服务提供者疼痛与损伤关系量表(HC-PAIRS)是一种评估医疗服务提供者对持续性背痛患者的态度和信念的工具,较低的分数意味着持续性疼痛并不表示残疾或活动受限。本范围综述旨在探索涉及 HC-PAIRS 的研究范围:文献调查:检索了从开始到 2022 年 4 月的 PubMed、Embase 和 PEDro 数据库:将提取的 HC-PAIRS 分数标准化为 15 个项目的分数,并按专业、学生或专业身份以及教育干预前后进行分类,以评估分数。结果:经过筛选,共纳入 51 项研究,代表 10,416 名参与者。分别有 24 项和 29 项研究对学生和专业人员的分数进行了调查。21 项研究包括教育干预措施,但随访情况各不相同。10项研究对HC-PAIRS的心理测量特性进行了评估,结果显示其信度和效度均可接受。所有参与者的总体基线平均得分为 55.34(95% CI:53.54-57.14)(学生:56.54 [56.54-60.87];专业人员:51.67 [49.08-54.27])。护士(61.99[55.66-68.31])和非卫生保健专业人员(65.30[57.33-73.28])的总体基线平均得分最高,而脊骨神经科医生(51.69[33.73-69.66])、医学博士/助理医师(52.64[47.27-58.00])、物理治疗师(53.42[50.67-56.17])和运动专业人员(57.36[49.39-65.33])的得分较低:HC-PAIRS已在多个学科的学生和专业人员中使用,其信度和效度均可接受。通常治疗背痛的专业人员的 HC-PAIRS 分数较低。未来的研究将受益于干预措施的标准化和后续评估的时间安排。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A scoping review to explore the use of the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale.

Objectives: Patients' interactions with health care providers influence back pain-related outcomes. The Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) is an instrument that assesses providers' attitudes and beliefs about patients with persistent back pain, with lower scores implying that persistent pain does not indicate disability or limitation of activities. This scoping review aims to explore the extent of research involving the HC-PAIRS.

Literature survey: PubMed, Embase, and PEDro databases were searched from inception to April 2022.

Methods: Extracted HC-PAIRS scores were standardized to 15-item scores and categorized by profession, student or professional status, and pre/post-educational intervention to evaluate scores. Psychometric properties and educational interventions of the HC-PAIRS were described.

Results: After screening, 51 studies representing 10,416 participants were included. Student and professional scores were investigated in 24 and 29 studies, respectively. Twenty-one studies included educational interventions, with heterogenous follow-up. Psychometric properties of the HC-PAIRS were assessed in 10 studies and demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. The overall baseline mean score among all participants was 55.34 (95% CI: 53.54-57.14) (students: 56.54 [56.54-60.87]; professionals: 51.67 [49.08-54.27]). Nurses (61.99 [55.66-68.31]) and non-health care professionals (65.30 [57.33-73.28]) had the highest overall baseline mean scores, whereas chiropractors (51.69 [33.73-69.66]), MDs/PAs (52.64 [47.27-58.00]), physical therapists (53.42 [50.67-56.17]), and exercise professionals (57.36 [49.39-65.33]) had lower scores.

Conclusions: The HC-PAIRS has been used across many disciplines in both students and professionals and demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. Professionals commonly treating back pain had lower HC-PAIRS scores. Future research could benefit from standardization of interventions and timing of follow-up assessments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PM&R
PM&R REHABILITATION-SPORT SCIENCES
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
187
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Topics covered include acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain, neurologic conditions involving the central and peripheral nervous systems, rehabilitation of impairments associated with disabilities in adults and children, and neurophysiology and electrodiagnosis. PM&R emphasizes principles of injury, function, and rehabilitation, and is designed to be relevant to practitioners and researchers in a variety of medical and surgical specialties and rehabilitation disciplines including allied health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信