Evaluation of a Multi-disciplinary Back Pain Rehabilitation Programme—Individual and Group Perspectives

Baird, Andrew J.; Worral, Lisa; Haslam, Colin; Haslam, Roger

doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9315-8

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study, participants were from a programme that explicitly addresses pain beliefs with participants [ 36 ], particularly the erroneous notion that ”hurt = harm” and ”more hurt = more harm”. Addressing these ”organic” pain beliefs has been shown to be associated with improvements in function following a rehabilitation programme [ 37 ] and the strength of these beliefs has been shown to clearly differentiate patients with chronic low back pain from the general population [ 38 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Pain Beliefs and Physical and Mental Health Outcome Measures in Chronic Low Back Pain: Direct and Indirect Effects

Baird

Sheffield

2016

Healthcare

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low back pain remains a major health problem with huge societal cost. Biomedical models fail to explain the disability seen in response to reported back pain and therefore patients’ beliefs, cognitions and related behaviours have become a focus for both research and practice. This study used the Pain Beliefs Questionnaire and had two aims: To examine the extent to which pain beliefs are related to disability, anxiety and depression; and to assess whether those relationships are mediated by pain self-efficacy and locus of control. In a sample of 341 chronic low back pain patients, organic and psychological pain beliefs were related to disability, anxiety and depression. However, organic pain beliefs were more strongly related to disability and depression than psychological pain beliefs. Regression analyses revealed that these relationships were in part independent of pain self-efficacy and locus of control. Further, mediation analyses revealed indirect pathways involving self-efficacy and, to a lesser extent chance locus of control, between organic pain beliefs, on the one hand, and disability, anxiety and depression, on the other. In contrast, psychological pain beliefs were only directly related to disability, anxiety and depression. Although longitudinal data are needed to corroborate our findings, this study illustrates the importance of beliefs about the nature of pain and beliefs in one’s ability to cope with pain in determining both physical and mental health outcomes in chronic low back pain patients.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Pain Beliefs and Physical and Mental Health Outcome Measures in Chronic Low Back Pain: Direct and Indirect Effects

Baird

Sheffield

2016

Healthcare

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature, common themes of judging CS were researcher opinion (Hogan, 2009; Ryu et al., 2010; Ward‐Smith, Korphage, & Hutto, 2008; Wendler, 2003), and researcher opinion accompanied by parameters established by expert opinion that involved (a) consensus panels (Doughty et al., 2006; Farnell et al., 2005); (b) government‐sponsored guidelines (Brown & Psarou, 2007; Skelly, Carlson, Leeman, Soward, & Burns, 2009); (c) institution‐based guidelines (Gilbert et al., 2002; Zengin & Enc, 2008); or (d) recommended thresholds or cutoff scores suggested within instruments (Dowling et al., 2007; Selbaek et al., 2008). A less common theme involved integrating patient judgments with researchers' judgments to ascertain CS (Baird et al., 2008; Cella et al., 2003; Dysvik et al., 2010).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of studies explicitly involved patients in either an inpatient or outpatient setting. Outpatient settings were represented by individuals in rehabilitation (Baird et al., 2008; Riegel et al., 2006) or nursing homes (Dowling, Graf, Hubbard, & Luxenberg, 2007; Fjelltun, Henriksen, Norberg, Gilje, & Normann, 2009), and those receiving postsurgical care (Wilson & Helgadottir, 2006) or psychotherapeutic treatment (England, Tripp‐Reimer, & Rubenstein, 2005) in their homes or in outpatient clinics. Inpatient settings were represented by individuals receiving treatment for cancer (Bauer & Romvari, 2009; Cella et al., 2003; Swanson & Koch, 2010) and psychiatric conditions (Bowers, Brennan, Flood, Lipang, & Oladapo, 2006), as well as obstetrical care (Callahan & Hynan, 2002; Simpson, Parsons, Greenwood, & Wade, 2001; Waltman, Brewer, Rogers, & May, 2004), pre‐ and postsurgical care (Gallagher & McKinley, 2009; Kurlowicz, 2001), and intensive care (Happ, Tuite, Dobbin, DiVirgilio‐Thomas, & Kitutu, 2004).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Psychiatric treatment responses included reduction of depression, anxiety, or distress (Callahan & Borja, 2008; Gallagher & McKinley, 2009; Kurlowicz, 2001; Simpson et al., 2001), and inpatient violence (Bowers et al., 2006; Dowling et al., 2007; Selbaek, Kirkevold, & Engedal, 2008). Responses to treatment often involved pain reduction and changed biopsychosocial functioning (Baird et al., 2008; Barrett, Brown, & Mundt, 2008; Cella et al., 2003; Dysvik et al., 2010; Frost et al., 2002).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the contemporary nursing literature, CS has been variously defined as a measure of patient response to treatment based on predetermined thresholds (Pittman & Rawl, 2008), a change that is at least twice the standard deviation of difference in scores due to measurement errors (Dysvik et al. 2010), and meaningful individual change exceeding the Reliable Change Index value that results in the final (posttest) score falling within the “normal range” (Baird, Worral, Haslam, & Haslam, 2008). Clearly, within the nursing discipline, a standard definition of CS has not materialized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical Significance as It Relates to Evidence‐Based Practice

Bruner¹,

Corbett²,

Gates³

et al. 2012

Int J of Nursing Knowl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE. This paper analyzes the concept of clinical significance (CS) in relation to evidence‐based practice (EBP). The purpose is to show that CS terminology is inconsistent in the nursing literature. It is argued that nursing outcomes and interventions that include findings of CS are difficult to interpret due to lack of an operational definition. It is further argued that the absence of a consistent operational definition is incompatible with EBPs which require standardization of terminology. DATA SOURCES. The current literature and research studies, particularly from the electronic databases Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ISI Web of Knowledge, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. DATA SYNTHESIS. The disparate uses of CS negatively impact standardizing and quantifying research outcomes to discern EBPs. The authors propose a definition of CS inclusive of the multifarious uses that were revealed in the literature, and conclude that there is a need for professional nursing consensus to define the term. A standard operational definition of CS would enable consistency as clinicians interpret research findings and facilitate translating research to practice. CONCLUSIONS. Given the centrality of CS to interpreting research findings and applying them to practice, there is a need to solidify the terminology of and measurements for CS in nursing. National nursing agencies, including The National Institute for Nursing Research and Sigma Theta Tau International, should make standardizing CS a high priority for targeted funding. One method of doing so would be to support a consensus convergence to review and select the optimal measures of CS for nursing research. Research to increase knowledge about what constitutes measurement and change, or CS from the patient perspective is needed. Editors and peer reviewers should encourage authors to include a discussion of CS. Discussions of CS should receive greater emphasis in research journals. It is hoped that the preliminary findings from the concept analysis presented in this article will facilitate the work of such a consensus forum. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE. The most immediate and tangible advantages to a common conceptual definition and meaning of CS terminologies by nursing, regardless of which definition is selected, are less confusion and more clarity. Ultimately, the most enduring benefit of a common conceptual definition and measurement for CS is the bridge it provides between research and practice, and the facility with which it promotes the integration of research into EBP.

show abstract