多地点社会心理试验中创伤性骨科损伤成人的临床表现。

IF 1.2 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Julia E Hooker, Kate N Jochimsen, Ryan A Mace, James D Doorley, Julie R Brewer, Ana-Maria Vranceanu
{"title":"多地点社会心理试验中创伤性骨科损伤成人的临床表现。","authors":"Julia E Hooker, Kate N Jochimsen, Ryan A Mace, James D Doorley, Julie R Brewer, Ana-Maria Vranceanu","doi":"10.22038/ABJS.2024.76953.3559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Traumatic orthopedic injuries are a top cause of hospital visits in the U.S. The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a brief mind-body intervention that targets catastrophic thinking and pain anxiety following orthopedic injury. This study examines the baseline presentation of adults with traumatic orthopedic injuries who were enrolled in our recent multisite feasibility RCT of TOR versus usual care at four geographically distinct Level 1 trauma centers. We also examine whether patient presentation varies by site.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited 181 adults (M<sub>age</sub>=44.16, SD=16.5) from four Level I trauma centers located in the northeast (Site A; <i>N</i>=63), southwest (Site B; <i>N</i>=44), southeast (Site C; <i>N</i>=44), and southeast (Site D; <i>N</i>=30). At baseline, participants provided information about sociodemographic factors, pain and physical function, and physicians completed the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square tests were used to compare variables between sites.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of the sample (88.4%) sustained a fracture, and the mean AIS score was 2.31 (<i>SD</i>=0.55). Age, race, sex, gender, occupation, or marital status did not differ across sites (<i>ps</i>>.05). Over half (63%) of the sample was treated surgically, and 28.7% endorsed taking narcotic pain medications. More participants at Sites B (75%) and D (96.7%) received surgery than participants at Sites A (41%) and C (61.4%). More participants at Sites D and B reported narcotic usage than participants at Sites C and A. Participants at Site D demonstrated greater functional impairment than participants at the other sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although sites were largely comparable, we did find key differences in surgical management, narcotic use, and functional disability which may have important implications for treatment response. This information will be used to iterate and refine TOR for a future multisite efficacy trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":46704,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","volume":"12 12","pages":"826-834"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664746/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Presentation of Adults with Traumatic Orthopedic Injuries Enrolled in a Multisite Psychosocial Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Julia E Hooker, Kate N Jochimsen, Ryan A Mace, James D Doorley, Julie R Brewer, Ana-Maria Vranceanu\",\"doi\":\"10.22038/ABJS.2024.76953.3559\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Traumatic orthopedic injuries are a top cause of hospital visits in the U.S. The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a brief mind-body intervention that targets catastrophic thinking and pain anxiety following orthopedic injury. This study examines the baseline presentation of adults with traumatic orthopedic injuries who were enrolled in our recent multisite feasibility RCT of TOR versus usual care at four geographically distinct Level 1 trauma centers. We also examine whether patient presentation varies by site.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited 181 adults (M<sub>age</sub>=44.16, SD=16.5) from four Level I trauma centers located in the northeast (Site A; <i>N</i>=63), southwest (Site B; <i>N</i>=44), southeast (Site C; <i>N</i>=44), and southeast (Site D; <i>N</i>=30). At baseline, participants provided information about sociodemographic factors, pain and physical function, and physicians completed the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square tests were used to compare variables between sites.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of the sample (88.4%) sustained a fracture, and the mean AIS score was 2.31 (<i>SD</i>=0.55). Age, race, sex, gender, occupation, or marital status did not differ across sites (<i>ps</i>>.05). Over half (63%) of the sample was treated surgically, and 28.7% endorsed taking narcotic pain medications. More participants at Sites B (75%) and D (96.7%) received surgery than participants at Sites A (41%) and C (61.4%). More participants at Sites D and B reported narcotic usage than participants at Sites C and A. Participants at Site D demonstrated greater functional impairment than participants at the other sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although sites were largely comparable, we did find key differences in surgical management, narcotic use, and functional disability which may have important implications for treatment response. This information will be used to iterate and refine TOR for a future multisite efficacy trial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS\",\"volume\":\"12 12\",\"pages\":\"826-834\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664746/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2024.76953.3559\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2024.76953.3559","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:创伤性骨科损伤是美国医院就诊的首要原因。最佳恢复工具包(TOR)是一种简短的身心干预,针对骨科损伤后的灾难性思维和疼痛焦虑。本研究考察了我们最近在四个地理位置不同的一级创伤中心进行的TOR与常规治疗的多地点可行性随机对照试验中,创伤性骨科损伤成人的基线表现。我们也检查病人的表现是否因部位而异。方法:我们从位于东北部的4个一级创伤中心招募了181名成人(Mage=44.16, SD=16.5)。N=63),西南(站点B;N=44),东南(站点C;N=44),东南方向(Site D;N = 30)。在基线时,参与者提供有关社会人口学因素、疼痛和身体功能的信息,医生完成简短伤害量表(AIS)。使用描述性统计来描述样本的特征,并使用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和卡方检验来比较不同地点之间的变量。结果:大多数患者(88.4%)发生骨折,平均AIS评分为2.31 (SD=0.55)。年龄、种族、性别、性别、职业或婚姻状况在不同地点没有差异(ps>.05)。超过一半(63%)的样本接受了手术治疗,28.7%的样本赞同服用麻醉止痛药。B区(75%)和D区(96.7%)比A区(41%)和C区(61.4%)接受手术的患者多。D点和B点的参与者比C点和a点的参与者报告更多的麻醉使用。D点的参与者比其他点的参与者表现出更大的功能损害。结论:虽然各部位在很大程度上具有可比性,但我们确实发现了手术处理、麻醉使用和功能残疾方面的关键差异,这可能对治疗反应有重要影响。这些信息将用于迭代和改进TOR,以用于未来的多地点疗效试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical Presentation of Adults with Traumatic Orthopedic Injuries Enrolled in a Multisite Psychosocial Trial.

Objectives: Traumatic orthopedic injuries are a top cause of hospital visits in the U.S. The Toolkit for Optimal Recovery (TOR) is a brief mind-body intervention that targets catastrophic thinking and pain anxiety following orthopedic injury. This study examines the baseline presentation of adults with traumatic orthopedic injuries who were enrolled in our recent multisite feasibility RCT of TOR versus usual care at four geographically distinct Level 1 trauma centers. We also examine whether patient presentation varies by site.

Methods: We recruited 181 adults (Mage=44.16, SD=16.5) from four Level I trauma centers located in the northeast (Site A; N=63), southwest (Site B; N=44), southeast (Site C; N=44), and southeast (Site D; N=30). At baseline, participants provided information about sociodemographic factors, pain and physical function, and physicians completed the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square tests were used to compare variables between sites.

Results: The majority of the sample (88.4%) sustained a fracture, and the mean AIS score was 2.31 (SD=0.55). Age, race, sex, gender, occupation, or marital status did not differ across sites (ps>.05). Over half (63%) of the sample was treated surgically, and 28.7% endorsed taking narcotic pain medications. More participants at Sites B (75%) and D (96.7%) received surgery than participants at Sites A (41%) and C (61.4%). More participants at Sites D and B reported narcotic usage than participants at Sites C and A. Participants at Site D demonstrated greater functional impairment than participants at the other sites.

Conclusion: Although sites were largely comparable, we did find key differences in surgical management, narcotic use, and functional disability which may have important implications for treatment response. This information will be used to iterate and refine TOR for a future multisite efficacy trial.

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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) aims to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of Orthopedic Sciences. The journal accepts scientific papers including original research, review article, short communication, case report, and letter to the editor in all fields of bone, joint, musculoskeletal surgery and related researches. The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) will publish papers in all aspects of today`s modern orthopedic sciences including: Arthroscopy, Arthroplasty, Sport Medicine, Reconstruction, Hand and Upper Extremity, Pediatric Orthopedics, Spine, Trauma, Foot and Ankle, Tumor, Joint Rheumatic Disease, Skeletal Imaging, Orthopedic Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation, Orthopedic Basic Sciences (Biomechanics, Biotechnology, Biomaterial..).
×
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