膝骨关节炎的心理干预:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Psychology Health & Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1080/13548506.2025.2454039
Yuichi Isaji, Yasuyuki Kurasawa, Daisuke Sasaki, Masateru Hayashi, Takashi Kitagawa
{"title":"膝骨关节炎的心理干预:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yuichi Isaji, Yasuyuki Kurasawa, Daisuke Sasaki, Masateru Hayashi, Takashi Kitagawa","doi":"10.1080/13548506.2025.2454039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions compared to standard rehabilitation in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Given the recognized influence of psychological factors in OA management, the review assessed their impact on pain, functional disability, and self-efficacy. A comprehensive search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, OpenGrey, and ClinicalTrials.gov, covering records from inception to September 2023. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that examined psychological interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and biofeedback in adults with knee OA diagnosed based on established clinical or radiological criteria. Studies with mixed populations were included only if at least 75% of participants had OA. Exclusion criteria included studies focused on surgical patients or individuals with systemic conditions (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis). No restrictions were placed on intervention duration, allowing for a broad range of studies to be considered. From the 3,649 records identified, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria, and 20 studies involving 3,138 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that psychological interventions led to significant improvements in pain (mean difference [MD]: -1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.61 to -0.46), disability and function (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.26; 95% CI: -0.38 to -0.15), and self-efficacy (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.70). The strongest effects were observed in self-efficacy. However, concerns regarding methodological limitations, variability in intervention approaches, and high heterogeneity led to the evidence quality being rated as low to very low. This review underscores the potential benefits of psychological interventions in knee OA management, particularly for enhancing self-efficacy. Nonetheless, further high-quality research employing standardized protocols is needed to validate these findings and facilitate their clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":54535,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Health & Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"636-662"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological intervention for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yuichi Isaji, Yasuyuki Kurasawa, Daisuke Sasaki, Masateru Hayashi, Takashi Kitagawa\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13548506.2025.2454039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions compared to standard rehabilitation in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Given the recognized influence of psychological factors in OA management, the review assessed their impact on pain, functional disability, and self-efficacy. A comprehensive search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, OpenGrey, and ClinicalTrials.gov, covering records from inception to September 2023. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that examined psychological interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and biofeedback in adults with knee OA diagnosed based on established clinical or radiological criteria. Studies with mixed populations were included only if at least 75% of participants had OA. Exclusion criteria included studies focused on surgical patients or individuals with systemic conditions (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis). No restrictions were placed on intervention duration, allowing for a broad range of studies to be considered. From the 3,649 records identified, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria, and 20 studies involving 3,138 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that psychological interventions led to significant improvements in pain (mean difference [MD]: -1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.61 to -0.46), disability and function (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.26; 95% CI: -0.38 to -0.15), and self-efficacy (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.70). The strongest effects were observed in self-efficacy. However, concerns regarding methodological limitations, variability in intervention approaches, and high heterogeneity led to the evidence quality being rated as low to very low. This review underscores the potential benefits of psychological interventions in knee OA management, particularly for enhancing self-efficacy. Nonetheless, further high-quality research employing standardized protocols is needed to validate these findings and facilitate their clinical application.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology Health & Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"636-662\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology Health & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2025.2454039\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Health & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2025.2454039","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估心理干预与标准康复治疗在膝骨关节炎(OA)患者中的有效性。考虑到心理因素对OA管理的影响,本综述评估了心理因素对疼痛、功能障碍和自我效能的影响。我们在多个数据库中进行了全面的搜索,包括PubMed、PsycINFO、CINAHL、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、Web of Science、OpenGrey和ClinicalTrials.gov,涵盖了从成立到2023年9月的记录。符合条件的研究是随机对照试验,研究心理干预,如认知行为疗法和生物反馈,对基于既定临床或放射标准诊断的成年膝关节OA患者。混合人群的研究只有在至少75%的参与者患有OA的情况下才被纳入。排除标准包括手术患者或有全身性疾病(如风湿性关节炎)的研究。没有限制干预的持续时间,允许广泛的研究被考虑。从确定的3,649份记录中,70项研究符合纳入标准,20项研究涉及3,138名参与者被纳入meta分析。结果表明,心理干预导致疼痛显著改善(mean difference [MD]: -1.04;95%可信区间[CI]: -1.61至-0.46),残疾和功能(标准化平均差[SMD]: -0.26;95% CI: -0.38 ~ -0.15)和自我效能感(SMD: 0.49;95% CI: 0.28 ~ 0.70)。对自我效能的影响最大。然而,对方法学局限性、干预方法的可变性和高度异质性的担忧导致证据质量被评为低至极低。这篇综述强调了心理干预在膝关节OA管理中的潜在益处,特别是在提高自我效能方面。尽管如此,需要采用标准化方案的进一步高质量研究来验证这些发现并促进其临床应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychological intervention for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions compared to standard rehabilitation in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Given the recognized influence of psychological factors in OA management, the review assessed their impact on pain, functional disability, and self-efficacy. A comprehensive search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, OpenGrey, and ClinicalTrials.gov, covering records from inception to September 2023. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that examined psychological interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and biofeedback in adults with knee OA diagnosed based on established clinical or radiological criteria. Studies with mixed populations were included only if at least 75% of participants had OA. Exclusion criteria included studies focused on surgical patients or individuals with systemic conditions (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis). No restrictions were placed on intervention duration, allowing for a broad range of studies to be considered. From the 3,649 records identified, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria, and 20 studies involving 3,138 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that psychological interventions led to significant improvements in pain (mean difference [MD]: -1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.61 to -0.46), disability and function (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.26; 95% CI: -0.38 to -0.15), and self-efficacy (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.70). The strongest effects were observed in self-efficacy. However, concerns regarding methodological limitations, variability in intervention approaches, and high heterogeneity led to the evidence quality being rated as low to very low. This review underscores the potential benefits of psychological interventions in knee OA management, particularly for enhancing self-efficacy. Nonetheless, further high-quality research employing standardized protocols is needed to validate these findings and facilitate their clinical application.

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
Psychology Health & Medicine
Psychology Health & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
200
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Psychology, Health & Medicine is a multidisciplinary journal highlighting human factors in health. The journal provides a peer reviewed forum to report on issues of psychology and health in practice. This key publication reaches an international audience, highlighting the variation and similarities within different settings and exploring multiple health and illness issues from theoretical, practical and management perspectives. It provides a critical forum to examine the wide range of applied health and illness issues and how they incorporate psychological knowledge, understanding, theory and intervention. The journal reflects the growing recognition of psychosocial issues as they affect health planning, medical care, disease reaction, intervention, quality of life, adjustment adaptation and management. For many years theoretical research was very distant from applied understanding. The emerging movement in health psychology, changes in medical care provision and training, and consumer awareness of health issues all contribute to a growing need for applied research. This journal focuses on practical applications of theory, research and experience and provides a bridge between academic knowledge, illness experience, wellbeing and health care 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