Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C Bombardier

Publications and source records attributed to C Bombardier.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is, in many countries, the main cause of long term disability in middle age. Patients with chronic low back pain are often referred for multidisciplinary treatment. Previous published systematic reviews on this topic included no randomised controlled trials and pooled together controlled and non-controlled studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation on pain, function, employment, quality of life and global assessment outcomes in subjects with chronic disabling low back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychLIT, CINAHL, Health STAR, and The Cochrane Library from the beginning of the database to June 1998 using the comprehensive search strategy recommended by the Back Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. INTERVENTION specific key words for this review were: patient care team, patient care management, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, multiprofessional, multimodal, pain clinic and functional restoration. We also reviewed reference lists and consulted the editors of the Back Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. SELECTION CRITERIA DESIGN: randomised controlled trials comparing multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a non-multidisciplinary control intervention. POPULATION: Adults with disabling low back pain of more than three months in duration. INTERVENTION: Patients had to be assessed and treated by qualified professionals according to a plan that addresses physical and at least one of psychological, or social/occupational dimensions. OUTCOMES: Only trials which reported treatment effect in at least one of pain, function, employment status, quality of life or global improvement. Exclusion: Pure educational interventions (back schools) and pure physical interventions were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Selection, data extraction and quality grading of studies was done by two independent reviewers using pre-tested data forms. Study quality was assessed according to the scheme recommended by the Back Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. Trials with internal validity scores of five or more in a ten point scale were considered high quality. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer. Given the marked heterogeneity in study settings, interventions and control groups we decided not to pool trial results in a meta-analysis. Instead, we summarized findings by strength of evidence and nature of intervention and control treatments. The evidence was judged to be strong when multiple high quality trials produced generally consistent findings. It was judged to be moderate when multiple low quality or one high quality and one or more low quality trials produced generally consistent findings. Evidence was considered to be limited when only one randomised trial existed or if findings of existing trials were inconsistent. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials (12 randomised comparisons) were included. They randomised a total of 1964 patients with chronic low back pain. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improved function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improved pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psycho-physical treatments did not improve pain, function or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation with a functional restoration approach improves pain and function. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.

Back Pain↗
PubMed2001

A systematic review of the prognosis of acute whiplash and a new conceptual framework to synthesize the literature.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of prognostic studies of acute whiplash. OBJECTIVES: To update the systematic review on the prognosis of acute whiplash published by the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders and to propose a new conceptual framework to conduct systematic reviews on prognosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1995, the Quebec Task Force published a systematic review of the literature on whiplash and concluded that its prognosis is favorable. However, few prognostic factors were identified. Recent studies have added to this knowledge, and there is a need to update the review conducted by the Quebec Task Force. METHODS: A bibliographic search of four electronic databases was performed to identify prognostic studies of acute whiplash published after 1995. The literature was appraised with standard review criteria. The consistency of evidence across studies was assessed. A conceptual framework was designed to classify the literature according to methodologic quality, target population, and phases of investigation. RESULTS: Thirteen cohort studies were included in the review. The framework used in this study demonstrates that most of the recent prognostic studies are descriptive in nature. The prognosis of acute whiplash varies according to the population sampled and the insurance/compensation system under which individuals are allowed to claim benefits. Besides age, gender, baseline neck pain intensity, baseline headache intensity, and baseline radicular signs and symptoms, there is little consistency in the literature about the prognostic factors for the recovery of whiplash. CONCLUSIONS: Scant knowledge about the prognosis of whiplash has been gained since the release of the Quebec Task Force report. However, it is becoming obvious that the insurance and compensation systems have a large impact on recovery from acute whiplash injuries. The conceptual framework used in this study demonstrates that large cohort studies investigating a wide range of prognostic factors are necessary to improve the understanding of this problem.

Concept Formation↗
PubMed2001

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1964 patients with disabling low back pain for more than three months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain, function, employment, quality of life, and global assessments. RESULTS: Ten trials reported on a total of 12 randomised comparisons of multidisciplinary treatment and a control condition. There was strong evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration improves function when compared with inpatient or outpatient non-multidisciplinary treatments. There was moderate evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain when compared with outpatient non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation or usual care. There was contradictory evidence regarding vocational outcomes of intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention. Some trials reported improvements in work readiness, but others showed no significant reduction in sickness leaves. Less intensive outpatient psychophysical treatments did not improve pain, function, or vocational outcomes when compared with non-multidisciplinary outpatient therapy or usual care. Few trials reported effects on quality of life or global assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed trials provide evidence that intensive multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation with functional restoration reduces pain and improves function in patients with chronic low back pain. Less intensive interventions did not show improvements in clinically relevant outcomes.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2001

A critical review of reviews on the treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the methodology of systematic reviews of conservative therapies for chronic nonspecific low back pain and to study the relation between the methodologic quality and other characteristics of these reviews. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Systematic reviews offer a concise summary of the evidence on treatment effectiveness, but flaws in their methodology can lead to invalid conclusions with serious implications for quality of patient care. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and the Cochrane Library were conducted. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by two blinded authors using three inclusion criteria: 1) chronic nonspecific low back pain, 2) systematic review, and 3) conservative treatment intervention. Data were extracted from each review by three authors. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 1102 titles and abstracts; 109 met inclusion criteria. A review of the full text of these articles excluded an additional 73 articles. Data abstraction and methodologic assessment were conducted on 36 articles reviewing 19 discrete interventions. The average quality score was 4.1, ranging from 1 (low) to 7 (high). There was a trend for recent reviews to be of higher quality. Fifty-six percent of the reviews had positive conclusions, but they had lower quality scores compared with those that had negative or uncertain conclusions. There were 27 (73%) qualitative and 10 (27%) quantitative summaries of results. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall quality of systematic reviews was satisfactory, the quality of the individual papers included in the reviews varied considerably. The reviews often provided contradictory evidence on the effectiveness of a wide range of commonly used conservative interventions for chronic nonspecific low back pain. These findings illustrate the pitfalls of systematic reviews where there are a number of low-quality trials and underscore the need for high-quality primary trials that will allow for more conclusive reviews.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Surfing for back pain patients: the nature and quality of back pain information on the Internet.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, systematic review of web sites related to back pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the nature and quality of back pain-related information on the World Wide Web during a 2-year period. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Internet has become a rich source of medical information. Limited knowledge is available, however, about the quality of online resources. Although previous systematic reviews on medical-related web sites found problems in varying degrees with the credibility of information, no such review was conducted to assess the back pain-related sites. METHODS: A search of web sites was conducted in November 1996 using five search engines (AltaVista, Infoseek, Lycos, Yahoo, and Magellan) and two key terms ("back pain" and "back problems"). A sample of sites was evaluated by two independent reviewers. Each site was described by the type and nature of the sponsor, target audience, and content. Overall quality was assessed in terms of evidence-based information available. RESULTS: Seventy-four web sites were reviewed in 1996, and nine of them (12.2%) were identified as high-quality sites. Advertising was the focus of 80.8% of the sites. Eleven sites (14.9%) were found to be discontinued 1 year later, and 20 (27.0%) were not accessible by the reviewers at the 2-year follow-up evaluation. Of the remaining 54 sites, 44.4% were produced by for-profit companies, and most sites targeted people with back pain (63.0%). Only seven out of the nine high-quality sites held their ratings at the 2-year follow-up evaluation. CONCLUSION: Most back pain-related web sites can be classified as advertising. The quality varied considerably, resulting in difficulties for patients to find useful information in this field. The increasing number of people seeking medical information on the Web creates a need for more high quality sites. Further, systematic review of web sites should be encouraged to monitor the accuracy of Internet publication.

Bias↗
PubMed2001

"Are you better?" A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery.

PURPOSE: Research into the meaning of illness has often focused on an individual's transition into a state of being ill, for example the adoption of a sick role. The question "Are you better?" addresses the transition out of this state and is fundamental to the patient-clinician relationship, guiding decisions about treatment. However, the question assumes that all patients have the same meaning for "being better." The purpose of this study was to explore the meaning of the concept of recovery (getting better) in a group of people with upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: Qualitative (grounded theory) methods were used. Individual interviews were conducted with 24 workers with work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb. The audiotaped interviews were transcribed and coded for content. Categories were linked, comparisons made, and a theory built about how people respond to the question "Are you better?" RESULTS: The perception of "being better" is highly contextualized in the experience of the individual. Being better is not only reflected in changes in the state of the disorder (resolution) but could be an adjustment of life to work around the disorder (readjustment) or an adaptation to living with the disorder (redefinition). The experience of the disorder can be influenced by factors such as the perceived legitimacy of the disorder, the comparators used to define health and illness, and coping styles, which in turn can influence being better. CONCLUSION: Two patients could mean very different things when saying that they are better. Some may not actually have a change in disease state as measured by symptoms, impairments, or function.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2001

A comparison of patients' responses about their disability with and without attribution to their affected area.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether individual items in a disability questionnaire were answered differently depending on whether or not the questions were attributed to the upper limb (i.e., "do you have difficulty eating due to your arm or hand problem?" or "do you have difficulty eating?", respectively). The a priori hypothesis was that the same or more disability would be detected by nonattributed items. Four hundred sixty-seven patients with upper extremity disorders completed the SF-36 general health survey, which does not attribute health problems to affected areas. Patients also completed six additional questions, modified from the SF-36, regarding work (four questions) and social function with friends and family (two questions), which attributed their disability to their affected upper extremity. Of 467 patients, 419-431 (89-92%) responded to both versions of the questions. Although we demonstrated a significant order effect (Generalized Estimating Equation; P=.003), comparison of the responses to the six questions showed that for five of the six questions (Generalized Estimating Equation; P< or = .001) patients reported more disability when the questions were worded with attribution to the upper extremity. Even considering the order effect, patients demonstrated a counterintuitive result by reporting more disability when questions were attributed to their affected area. Thus, both the wording of questions and order of questions can significantly affect patients' responses about their disability and raises questions about the validity of patients' reports of their disability.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

A taxonomy for responsiveness.

Responsiveness is quickly becoming a critical criterion for the selection of outcomes measures in studies of treatment effectiveness, economic appraisals, and other program evaluations. Statistical characteristics, specifically "large effect sizes," are often felt to indicate the relative worth of one instrument over another. However, debates about their meaning led the present authors to propose a taxonomy for responsiveness based on the context of the study concerned. The three axes underlying the classification system relate to: who is this being analyzed for (individuals or groups); which scores are being contrasted (over time/at one point in time); and the type of change being quantified (for example, observed change or important change). It is concluded that responsiveness should be considered a highly contextualized attribute of an instrument, rather than a static property and should be described only in that way. A questionnaire could thus be described as being "responsive to" a given category in the new taxonomy.

Classification↗
PubMed2001

Employment-related factors in chronic pain and chronic pain disability.

BACKGROUND: Disability is a multifactorial phenomenon. Social scientists suggest that nonclinical factors, including age, education, and job status, correlate with disability. OBJECTIVE: Do employment-related factors predict chronic pain and/or chronic pain disability? METHODOLOGY: The literature search identified 15 observational studies to provide the evidence about this question. RESULTS: Review topics included job satisfaction, type of work, modified work and work autonomy, other employment-related factors, and socioeconomic status. Most subjects in the studies had low back pain. The studies used return to work as an outcome predicting chronic pain disability. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of modified work and lack of work autonomy predicted chronic pain disability (level 2). There was limited evidence (level 3) that lack of job satisfaction, perception of difficult job conditions and demands, heavy physical demands of the job, private rather than public employment, and lower socioeconomic group predict chronic pain disability. The number of years employed varied as a predictor in different studies (level 4b).

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2001

Biomechanical and psychosocial risk factors for low back pain at work.

OBJECTIVES: This study determined whether the physical and psychosocial demands of work are associated with low back pain. METHODS: A case-control approach was used. Case subjects (n = 137) reported a new episode of low back pain to their employer, a large automobile manufacturing complex. Control subjects were randomly selected from the study base as cases accrued (n = 179) or were matched to cases by exact job (n = 65). Individual, clinical, and psychosocial variables were assessed by interview. Physical demands were assessed with direct workplace measurements of subjects at their usual jobs. The analysis used multiple logistic regression adjusted for individual characteristics. RESULTS: Self-reported risk factors included a physically demanding job, a poor workplace social environment, inconsistency between job and education level, better job satisfaction, and better coworker support. Low job control showed a borderline association. Physical-measure risk factors included peak lumbar shear force, peak load handled, and cumulative lumbar disc compression. Low body mass index and prior low back pain compensation claims were the only significant individual characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified specific physical and psychosocial demands of work as independent risk factors for low back pain.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a classification system for studies of responsiveness that was designed to help organize these studies, and identify those with the potential to provide information on minimal clinically important difference (MCID). We developed a 3 dimensional cube into which studies of responsiveness can be categorized based on their evaluation of 3 attributes: 1. individual or group setting; 2. which scores are contrasted; and 3. the type of change or difference being assessed. We present and discuss examples of studies that fit into categories in the classification cube. This classification system helps to focus attention on whether the literature is able to provide information on the specific type of change a person is interested in. It reinforces that the ability of an instrument to detect a certain category of discrimination within the cube does not mean it will necessarily be responsive to another category. The cube has been shown here as a means to separate out studies that address important change. These studies can then be examined as the source of information on MCID.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2001

Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures.

A proposed standard "core set" of outcome measures for low back pain includes 5 domains: back-specific function, generic health status, pain, work disability, and patient satisfaction. This paper focuses on the 2 recommended back-specific measures of function: the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). We specifically address their ability to measure change. A systematic review of the literature identified a total of 78 and 71 (RDQ and ODI, respectively) articles as potentially relevant. Detailed tables are provided for each citation, with the type of back pain population studied, the type of change measured, the estimate of change, and the interval over which the change was studied. These tables should be used as a reference for sample size calculation. The responsiveness of the RDQ found in the literature ranges from 2 to 8 points on its 0 to 24 scale depending on what change is being measured. As a rough guide, Roland recommends that a change in 2-3 points on the RDQ should be considered the minimum clinically important change. Choosing any value larger than 5 in designing a clinical trial would risk underpowering the trial, since fewer patients are needed if a trial is designed on the basis of a large change score.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2001

Physical therapy management of low back pain: an exploratory survey of therapist approaches.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Since the release of acute low back pain management guidelines in 1994, little was known about the effect of these guidelines on clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to examine physical therapists' reported management of acute and subacute lumbar impairment. SUBJECTS: One in 10 registered physical therapists who were randomly selected from southern Ontario, Canada, (n=454) and all registered physical therapists from northern Ontario (n=331) were surveyed. METHODS: In the questionnaire, case scenarios covered 3 areas related to the management of lumbar impairment: (1) physical examination, (2) treatment and recommendations, and (3) therapists' beliefs regarding its management. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-nine questionnaires were returned (response rate=72.5%). Only data obtained for therapists (n=274) whose weekly workload included more than 10% of people with lumbar impairment were used in the analysis. Overall, patient education, exercise, and electrotherapeutic and thermal modalities were the preferred interventions for acute lumbar impairment (symptom onset of less than 5 weeks) with or without sciatica, whereas exercise and work modification were preferred for subacute lumbar impairment (symptom onset of 5 weeks or longer). There was a trend of using electrotherapeutic and thermal modalities with uncertain effectiveness. Only 46.3% of the therapists agreed or strongly agreed that practice guidelines were useful for managing lumbar impairment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although the physical therapists surveyed, in general, followed the guidelines in managing acute lumbar impairment, they felt uncertain regarding the value of practice guidelines. Future research should focus on identifying effective treatment approaches and exploring the effectiveness of practice guidelines.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2000

Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations.

Clinicians and researchers increasingly recognize the importance of the patient's perspective in the evaluations of the effectiveness of treatment. The rapid growth in the number and types of patient-based outcome measures can be confusing. This supplement provides a state-of-the-art review of the available tools. In this paper, the key recommendations from the participating authors are summarized. A core set of measures should include the following five domains: back specific function, generic health status, pain, work disability, and patient satisfaction. Two commonly used measures of back-specific function are recommended: the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. Among the generic measures, the SF-36 strikes the best balance between length, reliability, validity, responsiveness, and experience in large populations of patients with back pain. Moreover, the SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale provides a brief measure of pain intensity and pain interference with activities. Health-related work disability should include at a minimum a measure of work status and work-time loss. For those who are still at work, new measures are being developed to measure health-related work limitations. No single measure of patient satisfaction is clearly preferred but guiding principles are provided to choose among available measures. In addition to the five recommended domains, preference-based health outcome measures, including patients utilities, may be useful when there is a need to value alternative health outcomes.

Disability Evaluation↗