慢性腰痛患者正念镇痛(MBPR)的发展和初步验证。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2025-02-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S507003
Wolf E Mehling, Carrie E Brintz, Wendy Hartogensis, Christiane Wolf, Kirsten Rogers, Shelley R Adler, Irina A Strigo, Frederick M Hecht
{"title":"慢性腰痛患者正念镇痛(MBPR)的发展和初步验证。","authors":"Wolf E Mehling, Carrie E Brintz, Wendy Hartogensis, Christiane Wolf, Kirsten Rogers, Shelley R Adler, Irina A Strigo, Frederick M Hecht","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S507003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) has shown efficacy for alleviating chronic low back pain (cLBP) and is included in current treatment guidelines. However, benefits are moderate. We aimed to optimize MBSR for chronic pain by using recent research to develop Mindfulness-Based Pain Reduction (MBPR) and test it in patients with cLBP.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Phase 1: We modified the MBSR curriculum with theory-driven components and convened focus groups with local and international mindfulness and clinical pain management experts to refine an 8-week MBPR program. Phase 2: We recruited participants with cLBP from Northern California using outreach in newsletters, social media, and other methods to test and iteratively modify the curriculum. MBPR was delivered in a group format by videoconference. The first three groups received MBPR; a fourth group was randomized to MBSR or MBPR to assess randomization feasibility. We assessed feasibility and acceptability by attendance, practice logs, and exit interviews. We assessed changes in patient-reported outcome measures for low back pain trials using a single arm (treatment group only) approach at 2 and 6 months with linear mixed models (primary: pain intensity and interference (PEG) scores).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phase 1: The MBPR curriculum included: 1) mindful interoceptive exposure to pain, 2) pain neuroscience education, and 3) yoga postures specifically for cLBP. Phase 2: we enrolled 58 patients in 4 cohorts; 49 completed post-intervention and 41 completed 6-month follow-up assessments; 29 of the 41 received MBPR. Participants attended a mean of 80% of sessions and 23 of 24 participants accepted randomization in the 4th cohort. Mean PEG scores improved for 20 of 29 MBPR participants in a clinically meaningful way (PEG scores >30%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MBPR was feasible and acceptable. Two-thirds of MBPR participants experienced clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity and interference scores. MBPR warrants further investigation through a randomized, controlled trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"785-801"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11846508/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Initial Validation of Mindfulness-Based Pain Reduction (MBPR) in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.\",\"authors\":\"Wolf E Mehling, Carrie E Brintz, Wendy Hartogensis, Christiane Wolf, Kirsten Rogers, Shelley R Adler, Irina A Strigo, Frederick M Hecht\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JPR.S507003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) has shown efficacy for alleviating chronic low back pain (cLBP) and is included in current treatment guidelines. However, benefits are moderate. We aimed to optimize MBSR for chronic pain by using recent research to develop Mindfulness-Based Pain Reduction (MBPR) and test it in patients with cLBP.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Phase 1: We modified the MBSR curriculum with theory-driven components and convened focus groups with local and international mindfulness and clinical pain management experts to refine an 8-week MBPR program. Phase 2: We recruited participants with cLBP from Northern California using outreach in newsletters, social media, and other methods to test and iteratively modify the curriculum. MBPR was delivered in a group format by videoconference. The first three groups received MBPR; a fourth group was randomized to MBSR or MBPR to assess randomization feasibility. We assessed feasibility and acceptability by attendance, practice logs, and exit interviews. We assessed changes in patient-reported outcome measures for low back pain trials using a single arm (treatment group only) approach at 2 and 6 months with linear mixed models (primary: pain intensity and interference (PEG) scores).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phase 1: The MBPR curriculum included: 1) mindful interoceptive exposure to pain, 2) pain neuroscience education, and 3) yoga postures specifically for cLBP. Phase 2: we enrolled 58 patients in 4 cohorts; 49 completed post-intervention and 41 completed 6-month follow-up assessments; 29 of the 41 received MBPR. Participants attended a mean of 80% of sessions and 23 of 24 participants accepted randomization in the 4th cohort. Mean PEG scores improved for 20 of 29 MBPR participants in a clinically meaningful way (PEG scores >30%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MBPR was feasible and acceptable. Two-thirds of MBPR participants experienced clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity and interference scores. MBPR warrants further investigation through a randomized, controlled trial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"785-801\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11846508/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pain Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S507003\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S507003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:正念减压(MBSR)已显示出缓解慢性腰痛(cLBP)的疗效,并被纳入当前的治疗指南。然而,好处是有限的。我们的目标是通过最近的研究来优化正念减压法治疗慢性疼痛,并在cLBP患者中进行测试。患者和方法:第一阶段:我们用理论驱动的部分修改了正念减压课程,并召集了当地和国际正念和临床疼痛管理专家的焦点小组,以完善为期8周的正念减压减压课程。第二阶段:我们从北加州招募了cLBP的参与者,使用新闻通讯、社会媒体和其他方法来测试和迭代修改课程。MBPR以小组形式通过视频会议进行。前三组接受MBPR治疗;第四组随机接受MBSR或MBPR治疗,以评估随机化的可行性。我们通过出勤、练习日志和离职面谈来评估可行性和可接受性。我们使用单臂(仅治疗组)方法,在2个月和6个月时使用线性混合模型(主要:疼痛强度和干扰(PEG)评分)评估腰痛试验中患者报告的结果测量的变化。结果:第一阶段:MBPR课程包括:1)正念内感受性疼痛暴露,2)疼痛神经科学教育,以及3)针对cLBP的瑜伽姿势。第二阶段:我们在4个队列中招募了58名患者;49例完成干预后评估,41例完成6个月随访评估;41例中有29例接受了MBPR治疗。参与者平均参加了80%的会议,24名参与者中有23名接受了第4队列的随机分配。29名MBPR参与者中有20人的平均PEG评分有临床意义的改善(PEG评分为30%)。结论:MBPR是可行的、可接受的。三分之二的MBPR参与者在疼痛强度和干扰评分方面有临床意义的改善。MBPR值得通过随机对照试验进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development and Initial Validation of Mindfulness-Based Pain Reduction (MBPR) in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

Purpose: Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) has shown efficacy for alleviating chronic low back pain (cLBP) and is included in current treatment guidelines. However, benefits are moderate. We aimed to optimize MBSR for chronic pain by using recent research to develop Mindfulness-Based Pain Reduction (MBPR) and test it in patients with cLBP.

Patients and methods: Phase 1: We modified the MBSR curriculum with theory-driven components and convened focus groups with local and international mindfulness and clinical pain management experts to refine an 8-week MBPR program. Phase 2: We recruited participants with cLBP from Northern California using outreach in newsletters, social media, and other methods to test and iteratively modify the curriculum. MBPR was delivered in a group format by videoconference. The first three groups received MBPR; a fourth group was randomized to MBSR or MBPR to assess randomization feasibility. We assessed feasibility and acceptability by attendance, practice logs, and exit interviews. We assessed changes in patient-reported outcome measures for low back pain trials using a single arm (treatment group only) approach at 2 and 6 months with linear mixed models (primary: pain intensity and interference (PEG) scores).

Results: Phase 1: The MBPR curriculum included: 1) mindful interoceptive exposure to pain, 2) pain neuroscience education, and 3) yoga postures specifically for cLBP. Phase 2: we enrolled 58 patients in 4 cohorts; 49 completed post-intervention and 41 completed 6-month follow-up assessments; 29 of the 41 received MBPR. Participants attended a mean of 80% of sessions and 23 of 24 participants accepted randomization in the 4th cohort. Mean PEG scores improved for 20 of 29 MBPR participants in a clinically meaningful way (PEG scores >30%).

Conclusion: MBPR was feasible and acceptable. Two-thirds of MBPR participants experienced clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity and interference scores. MBPR warrants further investigation through a randomized, controlled 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
Journal of Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
×
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