Arthritis care & research · 2024
General and Pain-Associated Psychological Distress Phenotypes Among Patients With Low Back Pain in the Military Health System.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rhon Daniel I, George Steven Z, Greenlee Tina A, Farrokhi Shawn, Lentz Trevor A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to describe rates of general and pain-related psychological distress for individuals with low back pain (LBP) in the Military Health System (MHS). We identified common phenotypes defined by rates of general and pain-related psychological distress and compared phenotypes on their level of pain interference, physical function, anxiety, and depression.
METHODS: We created a cohort from two completed trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment for LBP in the MHS (n = 510 total). The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag assessment tool identified the presence of 11 different yellow flags. Latent class analysis (LCA) used yellow flag indicators to identify common psychological phenotypes. We then compared Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems measures of pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety across phenotypes.
RESULTS: LCA identified five phenotypes (percentage of the sample): low distress (32%), high distress (27%), poor pain coping and low self-efficacy (18%), low self-efficacy and acceptance (14%), and poor pain coping (10%). Highly distressed phenotypes reported higher levels of pain interference, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety than those with other phenotypes, whereas the low distress phenotype had significantly lower pain interference and higher physical function scores than those characterized by all other phenotypes.
CONCLUSION: These phenotypes provide opportunities for clinicians and researchers to develop novel LBP treatment pathways tailored to patients with different profiles of psychological distress. Future work is needed to validate their predictive capabilities for clinical outcomes.
METHODS: We created a cohort from two completed trials assessing nonpharmacological treatment for LBP in the MHS (n = 510 total). The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag assessment tool identified the presence of 11 different yellow flags. Latent class analysis (LCA) used yellow flag indicators to identify common psychological phenotypes. We then compared Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems measures of pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety across phenotypes.
RESULTS: LCA identified five phenotypes (percentage of the sample): low distress (32%), high distress (27%), poor pain coping and low self-efficacy (18%), low self-efficacy and acceptance (14%), and poor pain coping (10%). Highly distressed phenotypes reported higher levels of pain interference, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety than those with other phenotypes, whereas the low distress phenotype had significantly lower pain interference and higher physical function scores than those characterized by all other phenotypes.
CONCLUSION: These phenotypes provide opportunities for clinicians and researchers to develop novel LBP treatment pathways tailored to patients with different profiles of psychological distress. Future work is needed to validate their predictive capabilities for clinical outcomes.