基于证据的下腰痛建议的差距:初级保健护理途径的准确性分析。

IF 1.5 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY
Denis Macleam Cunha E Silva Junior, Ana Vitória Araújo Goes, Shamyr Sulyvan de Castro, Fabianna Resende de Jesus-Moraleida, Ana Carla Lima Nunes
{"title":"基于证据的下腰痛建议的差距:初级保健护理途径的准确性分析。","authors":"Denis Macleam Cunha E Silva Junior, Ana Vitória Araújo Goes, Shamyr Sulyvan de Castro, Fabianna Resende de Jesus-Moraleida, Ana Carla Lima Nunes","doi":"10.1002/msc.70035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary health care is the gateway to low back pain (LBP) management. Effective management of LBP can reduce disability and socioeconomic burden. Standardised, accurate, and evidence-based information for assertive decision-making in care pathways for LBP has the potential to improve health service efficiency.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe and analyse the accuracy of the information on the care pathway for the management of LBP in primary care provided by the Ministry of Health from Brazil.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Descriptive study of the accuracy of information on the care pathway for LBP in primary care based on an official protocol of the Ministry of Health from Brazil. Information on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment, as well as health education, was extracted from the treatment protocol. The information was then compared with recent international guidelines for accuracy analysis. Each management recommendation was analysed by two independent researchers and classified as accurate, partially accurate, inaccurate or not mentioned according to the clarity and precision of the information.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis revealed that 43% of the management recommendations were accurate, 30% were partially accurate, and 26% of the recommendations presented in the investigated guidelines were not mentioned in the Ministry of Health's care pathway. Pharmacological recommendations showed 50% accuracy, non-pharmacological recommendations 60%, and health education recommendations 14%. Additionally, the care pathway appears to be outdated in recommending educational guidance that is not aligned with current clinical guidelines.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results indicate that, although there some aspects of the information provided by the Brazilian official management protocol align with international clinical guidelines, there are substantial gaps, especially in the areas of health education and non-pharmacological interventions. This study may contribute to making more accurate information available on LBP, bringing primary care professionals in Brazil closer to evidence-based recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":46945,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Care","volume":"23 1","pages":"e70035"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gaps in Evidence-Based Recommendations for Low Back Pain: Analysis of the Accuracy of the Care Pathway in Primary Care.\",\"authors\":\"Denis Macleam Cunha E Silva Junior, Ana Vitória Araújo Goes, Shamyr Sulyvan de Castro, Fabianna Resende de Jesus-Moraleida, Ana Carla Lima Nunes\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/msc.70035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary health care is the gateway to low back pain (LBP) management. Effective management of LBP can reduce disability and socioeconomic burden. Standardised, accurate, and evidence-based information for assertive decision-making in care pathways for LBP has the potential to improve health service efficiency.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe and analyse the accuracy of the information on the care pathway for the management of LBP in primary care provided by the Ministry of Health from Brazil.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Descriptive study of the accuracy of information on the care pathway for LBP in primary care based on an official protocol of the Ministry of Health from Brazil. Information on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment, as well as health education, was extracted from the treatment protocol. The information was then compared with recent international guidelines for accuracy analysis. Each management recommendation was analysed by two independent researchers and classified as accurate, partially accurate, inaccurate or not mentioned according to the clarity and precision of the information.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis revealed that 43% of the management recommendations were accurate, 30% were partially accurate, and 26% of the recommendations presented in the investigated guidelines were not mentioned in the Ministry of Health's care pathway. Pharmacological recommendations showed 50% accuracy, non-pharmacological recommendations 60%, and health education recommendations 14%. Additionally, the care pathway appears to be outdated in recommending educational guidance that is not aligned with current clinical guidelines.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results indicate that, although there some aspects of the information provided by the Brazilian official management protocol align with international clinical guidelines, there are substantial gaps, especially in the areas of health education and non-pharmacological interventions. This study may contribute to making more accurate information available on LBP, bringing primary care professionals in Brazil closer to evidence-based recommendations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Musculoskeletal Care\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"e70035\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Musculoskeletal Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.70035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.70035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:初级卫生保健是腰痛(LBP)管理的门户。有效管理腰痛可以减轻残疾和社会经济负担。标准化、准确和基于证据的信息对腰痛护理路径的果断决策具有提高卫生服务效率的潜力。目的:描述和分析巴西卫生部提供的初级保健中腰痛管理护理途径信息的准确性。方法:基于巴西卫生部官方协议,对初级保健中LBP护理途径信息的准确性进行描述性研究。从治疗方案中提取了有关非药物和药物治疗以及健康教育的信息。然后将这些信息与最近的准确性分析国际准则进行比较。每一项管理建议都由两名独立的研究人员进行分析,并根据信息的清晰度和准确性将其分为准确、部分准确、不准确或未提及。结果:分析显示,43%的管理建议是准确的,30%是部分准确的,调查指南中提出的建议有26%未在卫生部的护理路径中提及。药理学建议的准确率为50%,非药理学建议为60%,健康教育建议为14%。此外,护理途径在推荐与当前临床指南不一致的教育指导方面似乎已经过时。结论:结果表明,尽管巴西官方管理协议提供的信息在某些方面与国际临床指南一致,但仍存在实质性差距,特别是在健康教育和非药物干预方面。这项研究可能有助于提供更准确的LBP信息,使巴西的初级保健专业人员更接近基于证据的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gaps in Evidence-Based Recommendations for Low Back Pain: Analysis of the Accuracy of the Care Pathway in Primary Care.

Background: Primary health care is the gateway to low back pain (LBP) management. Effective management of LBP can reduce disability and socioeconomic burden. Standardised, accurate, and evidence-based information for assertive decision-making in care pathways for LBP has the potential to improve health service efficiency.

Objective: To describe and analyse the accuracy of the information on the care pathway for the management of LBP in primary care provided by the Ministry of Health from Brazil.

Methods: Descriptive study of the accuracy of information on the care pathway for LBP in primary care based on an official protocol of the Ministry of Health from Brazil. Information on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment, as well as health education, was extracted from the treatment protocol. The information was then compared with recent international guidelines for accuracy analysis. Each management recommendation was analysed by two independent researchers and classified as accurate, partially accurate, inaccurate or not mentioned according to the clarity and precision of the information.

Results: The analysis revealed that 43% of the management recommendations were accurate, 30% were partially accurate, and 26% of the recommendations presented in the investigated guidelines were not mentioned in the Ministry of Health's care pathway. Pharmacological recommendations showed 50% accuracy, non-pharmacological recommendations 60%, and health education recommendations 14%. Additionally, the care pathway appears to be outdated in recommending educational guidance that is not aligned with current clinical guidelines.

Conclusion: The results indicate that, although there some aspects of the information provided by the Brazilian official management protocol align with international clinical guidelines, there are substantial gaps, especially in the areas of health education and non-pharmacological interventions. This study may contribute to making more accurate information available on LBP, bringing primary care professionals in Brazil closer to evidence-based recommendations.

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
Musculoskeletal Care
Musculoskeletal Care RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
88
期刊介绍: Musculoskeletal Care is a peer-reviewed journal for all health professionals committed to the clinical delivery of high quality care for people with musculoskeletal conditions and providing knowledge to support decision making by professionals, patients and policy makers. This journal publishes papers on original research, applied research, review articles and clinical guidelines. Regular topics include patient education, psychological and social impact, patient experiences of health care, clinical up dates and the effectiveness of therapy.
×
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