BackgroundStress levels are evident among health professionals. However, there are few studies on sensory-based self-care aimed at stress management, self-esteem and subjective well-being in this group of professionals.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a self-care intervention mediated by the senses on the stress levels, self-esteem and well-being of health professionals in a hospital environment.MethodsA total of 93 health professionals participated in an unblinded clinical trial, randomized into four groups: 1) control (no intervention); 2) Monosensory—daily body moisturizing (DBM) with odorless cream; 3) Bisensory—DBM with scented cream; 4) Multisensory—DBM with scented cream associated with audiovisual material. Participants answered specific questionnaires to assess stress, self-esteem and well-being and cortisol samples were collected at baseline, 15 and 30 days following intervention, and at the 30-day follow-up.ResultsSelf-care was characterized as neglected, with most participants reporting inadequate hours of sleep (74%), irregular physical activity (68%), and inadequate nutrition (45%). Compared to the other groups, the Bisensory group had lower stress on all three assessments (p = 0.017; 0.012; 0.036), a life satisfaction 8% higher at follow-up than at baseline (95% CI: 2% to 15%, p = 0.016), a 10% increase in positive affect (95% CI: 2% to 19%, p = 0.011) and a 12% reduction in negative affect (95% CI: 3% to 21% less, p = 0.014) after 30 days. The Multisensory group showed improvement in self-esteem (p = 0.012) and reduced cortisol (p = 0.036) after 30 days of intervention. The control group showed no changes in the variables studied, except for cortisol: an increase at the 15-day evaluation (denoting higher risk for stress, p = 0.009) and a reduction at follow-up (p = 0.028), which was nevertheless within normal levels.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02406755

Objective:To analyze pain, functional capacity, quality of life, anxiety and depression outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery following use of the Second Opinion Program, and to present disagreements regarding diagnoses and therapeutic indications between the first and second opinions. Methods: A prospective, observational cohort study with 100 patients enrolled in the Second Opinion Program who underwent lumbar spine surgery. Questionnaires addressing pain intensity, level of disability, quality of life, anxiety and depression were applied prior to and within 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of surgery. Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were performed. The following clinical outcomes were analyzed: pain intensity, level of disability, quality of life, anxiety, and depression. Results: In this sample, 88% and 12% out of 100 patients were submitted to lumbar decompression and arthrodesis, respectively. Patients reported improvements in function, pain intensity, and quality of life factors following surgery and were able to attain the minimal clinically important difference relative to the preoperative period. Agreement between the first and second opinions was observed in 44% of diagnoses, and in 27% of therapeutic indications. Conclusion: Patients had favorable postoperative outcomes regarding pain, disability, and quality of life. These findings and the high rates of diagnostic and therapeutic indication disagreements corroborate the need of a second opinion in cases of spine disease with surgical indications.