uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Implementing behavioural medicine in physiotherapy treatment: Part I: Clinical trial
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Neuroscience, Physiotheraphy.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Neuroscience, Physiotheraphy.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Caring Sciences.
2010 (English)In: Advances in Physiotherapy, ISSN 1403-8196, E-ISSN 1651-1948, Vol. 12, no 1, 2-12 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective

 To investigate the capacity of the Pain Belief Screening Instrument (PBSI) to discriminate between subgroups for targeting of treatment, investigate effects of treatment tailored to patients' individual and functional goals, and identify a suitable treatment dosage for patients with low risk of disability. Explorative study, Part I.

Design

 Randomized, controlled clinical trial with four treatment conditions.

 Methods

 Patients in primary healthcare (n=45) with musculoskeletal pain for ≥4 weeks were included. PBSI-identified subgroups were validated by comparing scores on four established instruments. Measures of disability and patients' ratings of global outcome were used to examine treatment effect.

 Results

 PBSI data adequately defined patients with either high or low risk of disability. Patients in the tailored treatment rated global outcome as better than in the non-tailored treatment. No differences were found on disability measures. For the low-risk group, the brief tailored treatment was as effective as the non-targeted control treatment.

Conclusion

 The PBSI adequately defined subgroups. Tailored treatment was partially superior to physical exercise treatment. Targeting by treatment dosage was effective for low-risk patients but remains to be investigated for high-risk patients. Treatment integrity for tailored treatments was compromised and is to be further explored in the following study.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14038190903480664

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 12, no 1, 2-12 p.
Keyword [en]
Pain, PBSI, primary healthcare, screening, tailored treatment
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-131502DOI: 10.3109/14038190903480664OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-131502DiVA: diva2:354569
Available from: 2010-10-04 Created: 2010-10-04 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Lindberg, PerÅsenlöf, Pernilla

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lindberg, PerÅsenlöf, Pernilla
By organisation
PhysiotheraphyDepartment of PsychologyCaring Sciences
In the same journal
Advances in Physiotherapy
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 665 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf