| Title |
A 9-year follow-up of a self-management group intervention for persistent neck pain in primary health care: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s125074 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catharina Gustavsson, Lena von Koch |
| Abstract |
In previous short-term and 2-year follow-ups, a pain and stress self-management group intervention (PASS) had better effect on pain-related disability, self-efficacy, catastrophizing, and perceived pain control than individually administered physiotherapy (IAPT) for patients with persistent tension-type neck pain. Studies that have evaluated long-term effects of self-management approaches toward persistent neck pain are sparse. The objective of this study was to compare pain-related disability, self-efficacy for activities of daily living (ADL), catastrophizing, pain, pain control, use of analgesics, and health care utilization in people with persistent tension-type neck pain 9 years after they received the PASS or IAPT. Of 156 people (PASS, n = 77; IAPT, n = 79) originally included in a randomized controlled trial, 129 people (PASS, n = 63; IAPT, n = 66) were eligible and were approached for the 9-year follow-up. They were sent a self-assessment questionnaire, comprising the Neck Disability Index, the Self-Efficacy Scale, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, and questions regarding pain, analgesics, and health care utilization. Mixed linear models for repeated measures analysis or generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the differences between groups and within groups over time (baseline, previous follow-ups, and 9-year follow-up) and the interaction effect of "time by group". Ninety-four participants (73%) responded (PASS, n = 48; IAPT, n = 46). At 9 years, PASS participants reported less pain-related disability, pain at worst, and analgesics usage, and a trend toward better self-efficacy compared to IAPT participants. There was a difference between groups in terms of change over time for disability, self-efficacy for ADL, catastrophizing, perceived pain control, and health care visits in favor of PASS. Analyses of simple main effects at 9 years showed that the PASS group had less disability (p = 0.006) and a trend toward better self-efficacy (p = 0.059) than the IAPT group. The favorable effects on pain-related disability of PASS were sustained 9 years after the intervention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| Germany | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,561,838
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#636
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,308
of 417,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#18
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 417,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.