[跨学科多模式疼痛疗法:剂量有区别吗? 常规临床护理比较]。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Schmerz Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1007/s00482-024-00838-6
Philipp Baumbach, Peter Storch, Thomas Weiss, Winfried Meissner, Fabian Rottstädt
{"title":"[跨学科多模式疼痛疗法:剂量有区别吗? 常规临床护理比较]。","authors":"Philipp Baumbach, Peter Storch, Thomas Weiss, Winfried Meissner, Fabian Rottstädt","doi":"10.1007/s00482-024-00838-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT) is an established treatment for patients with severe chronic pain. Little evidence is available on the role of treatment dosage and, in particular, on the association between the duration of IMPT and treatment outcome.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the medium-term treatment success of a short inpatient (SIT, 1 week) and a long outpatient (LOT, 4 weeks) IMPT with a comparable treatment concept and comparable therapy intensity (20 h/week) in patients with severe chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients in both groups completed the German Pain Questionnaire at the beginning and end of IMPT as well as after 3 months. Primary outcome measures included pain-related impairment and average pain intensity at follow-up in patients of comparable sex, age as well as pain intensity and impairment at the beginning of the therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While both groups initially showed significant treatment effects in pain-related impairment and average pain intensity, LOT patients (n = 32) reported significantly better values in both variables at 3‑month follow-up compared with SIT patients (n = 32). This was due to sustained positive effects in LOT patients and worsening in the SIT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results indicate that initial treatment effects can be observed in both treatment settings, but a longer duration of therapy seems to favour the long-term stability of treatment effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":21572,"journal":{"name":"Schmerz","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy: does the dose make a difference? : A comparison from routine clinical care].\",\"authors\":\"Philipp Baumbach, Peter Storch, Thomas Weiss, Winfried Meissner, Fabian Rottstädt\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00482-024-00838-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT) is an established treatment for patients with severe chronic pain. Little evidence is available on the role of treatment dosage and, in particular, on the association between the duration of IMPT and treatment outcome.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the medium-term treatment success of a short inpatient (SIT, 1 week) and a long outpatient (LOT, 4 weeks) IMPT with a comparable treatment concept and comparable therapy intensity (20 h/week) in patients with severe chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients in both groups completed the German Pain Questionnaire at the beginning and end of IMPT as well as after 3 months. Primary outcome measures included pain-related impairment and average pain intensity at follow-up in patients of comparable sex, age as well as pain intensity and impairment at the beginning of the therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While both groups initially showed significant treatment effects in pain-related impairment and average pain intensity, LOT patients (n = 32) reported significantly better values in both variables at 3‑month follow-up compared with SIT patients (n = 32). This was due to sustained positive effects in LOT patients and worsening in the SIT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results indicate that initial treatment effects can be observed in both treatment settings, but a longer duration of therapy seems to favour the long-term stability of treatment effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Schmerz\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Schmerz\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-024-00838-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schmerz","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-024-00838-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:跨学科多模式疼痛疗法(IMPT)是一种治疗严重慢性疼痛患者的成熟疗法。目的:本回顾性研究旨在比较短期住院治疗(SIT,1 周)和长期门诊治疗(LOT,4 周)IMPT 在重度慢性疼痛患者中的中期治疗效果,这两种治疗方法具有相似的治疗理念和治疗强度(20 小时/周):方法:两组患者均在 IMPT 开始和结束时以及 3 个月后填写德国疼痛问卷。主要结果指标包括随访时与疼痛相关的损伤和平均疼痛强度,这些指标与患者的性别、年龄以及治疗开始时的疼痛强度和损伤相当:结果:虽然两组患者最初在疼痛相关损伤和平均疼痛强度方面都显示出了明显的治疗效果,但在 3 个月的随访中,LOT 患者(32 人)与 SIT 患者(32 人)相比,在这两个变量上都有明显的改善。这是因为 LOT 患者的疗效持续良好,而 SIT 组的疗效则有所下降:结果表明,两种治疗方法都能观察到初步治疗效果,但较长的治疗时间似乎有利于治疗效果的长期稳定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy: does the dose make a difference? : A comparison from routine clinical care].

Background: Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT) is an established treatment for patients with severe chronic pain. Little evidence is available on the role of treatment dosage and, in particular, on the association between the duration of IMPT and treatment outcome.

Aim: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the medium-term treatment success of a short inpatient (SIT, 1 week) and a long outpatient (LOT, 4 weeks) IMPT with a comparable treatment concept and comparable therapy intensity (20 h/week) in patients with severe chronic pain.

Methods: Patients in both groups completed the German Pain Questionnaire at the beginning and end of IMPT as well as after 3 months. Primary outcome measures included pain-related impairment and average pain intensity at follow-up in patients of comparable sex, age as well as pain intensity and impairment at the beginning of the therapy.

Results: While both groups initially showed significant treatment effects in pain-related impairment and average pain intensity, LOT patients (n = 32) reported significantly better values in both variables at 3‑month follow-up compared with SIT patients (n = 32). This was due to sustained positive effects in LOT patients and worsening in the SIT group.

Conclusion: The results indicate that initial treatment effects can be observed in both treatment settings, but a longer duration of therapy seems to favour the long-term stability of treatment effects.

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
Schmerz
Schmerz 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Der Schmerz is an internationally recognized journal and addresses all scientists, practitioners and psychologists, dealing with the treatment of pain patients or working in pain research. The aim of the journal is to enhance the treatment of pain patients in the long run. Review articles provide an overview on selected topics and offer the reader a summary of current findings from all fields of pain research, pain management and pain symptom management. Freely submitted original papers allow the presentation of important clinical studies and serve the scientific exchange. Case reports feature interesting cases and aim at optimizing diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Review articles under the rubric ''Continuing Medical Education'' present verified results of scientific research and their integration into daily practice.
×
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