4.4 Article

The impact of chronic low back pain is partly related to loss of social role: A qualitative study

期刊

JOINT BONE SPINE
卷 82, 期 6, 页码 437-441

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2015.02.019

关键词

Low back pain; Qualitative research; Social interaction

资金

  1. French society of rheumatology (Societe francaise de rhumatologie)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Chronic low back pain (LBP) has an important impact on quality of life, through pain and functional incapacity, but also psychosocial distress. The social participation consequences of LBP have been less explored. The objective was to better understand experiences of patients living with chronic LBP, with a focus on impact on relationships with family, friends and work colleagues. Methods: Monocentric qualitative study in a tertiary-referral centre in Paris, France. Participants had chronic mechanical LBP. Semi-structured interviews were conducted during 4 focus groups discussions focusing on living with LBP. Verbatim was categorized and coded using thematic content analysis. Results: Twenty-five persons (11 men, 14 women) participated; ages ranged 25-81 years. Participants often reported a negative self-perception in social interactions, with shame and frustration regarding their difficulties to perform activities of daily living. They often felt misunderstood and unsupported, partly due to the absence of visible signs of the condition. Participants suffered from the negative collective image attached to LBP (benign/psychological disease). LBP resulted in some patients in a significant loss of social identity with perceived impossibility to perform one's social role at home and at work. In contrast, family and friends were sometimes a support and helped in pain management. Conclusion: A systematic assessment of social role is needed in LBP care. (C) 2015 Societe francaise de rhumatologie. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.4
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