4.5 Review

Self-management program for chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 100, 期 1, 页码 37-49

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.029

关键词

Low back pain; Chronic; Self-management program; Systematic review; Meta analysis

资金

  1. Youth Fund of Humanities and Social Science Research Foundation, Ministry of Education, China [14YJCZH024]
  2. Directing Program of Philosophy and Social Science Research Projects in Institutions of Higher Education, Jiangsu Province [2014SJD140]
  3. Qing Lan Project of Jiangsu Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of self-management programs (SMPs) on chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods: A search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Elsevier, and CINAHL through June, 2015. Two reviewers selected trials, conducted critical appraisal, and extracted data. Meta analyses were performed. Results: Thirteen moderate-quality RCTs were included. There were 9 RCTs for immediate post intervention on pain intensity and disability, 5 RCTs for short term, 3 RCTs for intermediate and 4 RCTs for long term. Specifically, the effect sizes (ESs) of SMP on pain intensity were -0.29, -0.20, -0.23, and -0.25 at immediate post-intervention, short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-ups, respectively. The ESs on disability were -0.28, -0.23, -0.19, and -0.19 at immediate post-intervention, short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-ups, respectively. Conclusion: For CLBP patients, there is moderate-quality evidence that SMP has a moderate effect on pain intensity, and small to moderate effect on disability. Practice implications: SMP can be regarded as an effective approach for CLBP management. In addition to face-to-face mode, internet-based strategy can also be considered as a useful option to deliver SMP. Theoretically driven programs are preferred. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据