肌肉骨骼疾病预防资质。腰痛的例子。

Q3 Medicine
Ernest Wiśniewski, Aleksandra Zubrzycka, Z. Wronski, A. Hadamus
{"title":"肌肉骨骼疾病预防资质。腰痛的例子。","authors":"Ernest Wiśniewski, Aleksandra Zubrzycka, Z. Wronski, A. Hadamus","doi":"10.5114/AREH.2018.83390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: In order to take a correct decision while qualifying for prevention programs, particularly in regard to persons with disability certificate, a detailed physiotherapeutic examination needs to be conducted. Currently practitioners are looking for methods allowing for quick assessment of patients’ health before advising prevention or treatment. This paper examines the Functional Pain Index (FPI), a tool conceived by the authors, and compares the results with the results of the anamnesis and physical examination conducted by a physiotherapist. Material and methods: Sample group consisted of 206 workers with disability certificate who have been experiencing low back pain (LBP). Each person went through physiotherapeutic examination, it was concluded by a decision to either qualify them for prevention program or advise LBP treatment. This result was compared with the FPI questionnaire and qualification based on the result produced by the questionnaire. Results: The FPI based on three variables embedded in the questionnaire showed no statistically significant difference compared to a similar index based on the documentation produced by physiotherapeutic examination. Following the latter, 87 persons were qualified for prevention programs, with the FPI in this group ranging on average from 31.9 to 36.8 points, depending on the applied FPI variant. 119 persons were advised physiotherapeutic treatment or medical consultation, with the FPI in this group ranging from 51.8 to 57.5 points. It has been also shown that there is a statistically significant correlation between a decision of a physiotherapist to advise LBP prevention program and the FPI score in all its variants (p<0.001). Conclusions: High consistency between the FPI based on the questionnaire and the index based on physiotherapeutic examination shows that the questionnaire is highly reliable. The FPI questionnaire can be a good alternative for qualifying patients for prevention programs, with questionnaire-based qualification for prevention program triggered in 0-40% range of the FPI. occupational disease, work-related musculoskeletal disorders, low back pain, Functional Pain Index validity email: zbigniewwronski@gmail.com The research was financed from the authors’ own resources Badania sfinansowane ze środków własnych autorów Rehabilitation Advances in Rehabilitation/Postępy Rehabilitacji (4), 13 – 19, 2018 A – preparing concepts B – formulating methods C – conducting research D – processing results E – interpretation and conclusions F – editing the final version","PeriodicalId":52524,"journal":{"name":"Postepy Rehabilitacji","volume":"19 1","pages":"13-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualification for prevention of musculoskeletal diseases. Low back pain example.\",\"authors\":\"Ernest Wiśniewski, Aleksandra Zubrzycka, Z. Wronski, A. Hadamus\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/AREH.2018.83390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: In order to take a correct decision while qualifying for prevention programs, particularly in regard to persons with disability certificate, a detailed physiotherapeutic examination needs to be conducted. Currently practitioners are looking for methods allowing for quick assessment of patients’ health before advising prevention or treatment. This paper examines the Functional Pain Index (FPI), a tool conceived by the authors, and compares the results with the results of the anamnesis and physical examination conducted by a physiotherapist. Material and methods: Sample group consisted of 206 workers with disability certificate who have been experiencing low back pain (LBP). Each person went through physiotherapeutic examination, it was concluded by a decision to either qualify them for prevention program or advise LBP treatment. This result was compared with the FPI questionnaire and qualification based on the result produced by the questionnaire. Results: The FPI based on three variables embedded in the questionnaire showed no statistically significant difference compared to a similar index based on the documentation produced by physiotherapeutic examination. Following the latter, 87 persons were qualified for prevention programs, with the FPI in this group ranging on average from 31.9 to 36.8 points, depending on the applied FPI variant. 119 persons were advised physiotherapeutic treatment or medical consultation, with the FPI in this group ranging from 51.8 to 57.5 points. It has been also shown that there is a statistically significant correlation between a decision of a physiotherapist to advise LBP prevention program and the FPI score in all its variants (p<0.001). Conclusions: High consistency between the FPI based on the questionnaire and the index based on physiotherapeutic examination shows that the questionnaire is highly reliable. The FPI questionnaire can be a good alternative for qualifying patients for prevention programs, with questionnaire-based qualification for prevention program triggered in 0-40% range of the FPI. occupational disease, work-related musculoskeletal disorders, low back pain, Functional Pain Index validity email: zbigniewwronski@gmail.com The research was financed from the authors’ own resources Badania sfinansowane ze środków własnych autorów Rehabilitation Advances in Rehabilitation/Postępy Rehabilitacji (4), 13 – 19, 2018 A – preparing concepts B – formulating methods C – conducting research D – processing results E – interpretation and conclusions F – editing the final version\",\"PeriodicalId\":52524,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Postepy Rehabilitacji\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"13-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Postepy Rehabilitacji\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/AREH.2018.83390\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postepy Rehabilitacji","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/AREH.2018.83390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

简介:为了在获得预防方案资格时做出正确的决定,特别是关于残疾人证书,需要进行详细的物理治疗检查。目前从业人员正在寻找方法,允许在建议预防或治疗之前快速评估患者的健康状况。本文检验了功能性疼痛指数(FPI),这是作者构想的一个工具,并将结果与物理治疗师进行的记忆和体格检查的结果进行了比较。材料与方法:样本组为206例患有腰痛的工人,持残疾证。每个人都经过了物理治疗检查,最后决定他们是否有资格接受预防计划或建议腰痛治疗。将该结果与FPI问卷进行比较,并根据问卷得出的结果进行定性。结果:基于问卷中嵌入的三个变量的FPI与基于物理治疗检查产生的文献的类似指数相比,没有统计学上的显著差异。在后者之后,87人有资格参加预防计划,这一组的FPI平均在31.9到36.8分之间,取决于应用的FPI变量。119人获建议进行物理治疗或求医,该组的心理健康指数介乎51.8至57.5分。研究还表明,物理治疗师建议腰痛预防方案的决定与FPI评分之间存在统计学上的显著相关性(p<0.001)。结论:基于问卷的FPI与基于物理治疗检查的指标具有较高的一致性,说明问卷具有较高的信度。FPI问卷可以是一个很好的替代方案,以问卷为基础的预防方案资格在FPI的0-40%范围内触发。职业疾病、与工作相关的肌肉骨骼疾病、腰痛、功能性疼痛指数有效性电子邮件:zbigniewwronski@gmail.com本研究经费来自作者自有资源Badania sfinansowane ze środków własnych autorów Rehabilitation Advances in Rehabilitation/Postępy Rehabilitacji(4), 2018年13 - 19日A -准备概念B -制定方法C -进行研究D -处理结果E -解释和结论F -编辑定稿
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Qualification for prevention of musculoskeletal diseases. Low back pain example.
Introduction: In order to take a correct decision while qualifying for prevention programs, particularly in regard to persons with disability certificate, a detailed physiotherapeutic examination needs to be conducted. Currently practitioners are looking for methods allowing for quick assessment of patients’ health before advising prevention or treatment. This paper examines the Functional Pain Index (FPI), a tool conceived by the authors, and compares the results with the results of the anamnesis and physical examination conducted by a physiotherapist. Material and methods: Sample group consisted of 206 workers with disability certificate who have been experiencing low back pain (LBP). Each person went through physiotherapeutic examination, it was concluded by a decision to either qualify them for prevention program or advise LBP treatment. This result was compared with the FPI questionnaire and qualification based on the result produced by the questionnaire. Results: The FPI based on three variables embedded in the questionnaire showed no statistically significant difference compared to a similar index based on the documentation produced by physiotherapeutic examination. Following the latter, 87 persons were qualified for prevention programs, with the FPI in this group ranging on average from 31.9 to 36.8 points, depending on the applied FPI variant. 119 persons were advised physiotherapeutic treatment or medical consultation, with the FPI in this group ranging from 51.8 to 57.5 points. It has been also shown that there is a statistically significant correlation between a decision of a physiotherapist to advise LBP prevention program and the FPI score in all its variants (p<0.001). Conclusions: High consistency between the FPI based on the questionnaire and the index based on physiotherapeutic examination shows that the questionnaire is highly reliable. The FPI questionnaire can be a good alternative for qualifying patients for prevention programs, with questionnaire-based qualification for prevention program triggered in 0-40% range of the FPI. occupational disease, work-related musculoskeletal disorders, low back pain, Functional Pain Index validity email: zbigniewwronski@gmail.com The research was financed from the authors’ own resources Badania sfinansowane ze środków własnych autorów Rehabilitation Advances in Rehabilitation/Postępy Rehabilitacji (4), 13 – 19, 2018 A – preparing concepts B – formulating methods C – conducting research D – processing results E – interpretation and conclusions F – editing the final version
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
Postepy Rehabilitacji
Postepy Rehabilitacji Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Rehabilitation is not only directed to representatives of biological and medical sciences, specialists from almost all fields of medicine, such as cardiology, neurology, orthopedics, traumatology and internal diseases, have been published in it. The journal contains papers concerning psychological, sociological, and occupational rehabilitation, along with articles which deal with organization and marketing. The journal is also dedicated to the ethical problems of rehabilitation. A significant part of the published papers have focused on the problems of sport and physical activity for people with disabilities
×
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