Sanders Ariëtte R J, Bensing Jozien M, Magnée Tessa, Verhaak Peter, de Wit Niek J
Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500 3508, GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), PO Box 1568 3500, BN, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jun 28;19(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12875-018-0776-8.
Although the recovery of patients suffering from low back pain is highly context dependent, patient preferences about treatment options are seldom incorporated into the therapeutic plan. Shared decision-making (SDM) offers a tool to overcome this deficiency. The reinforcement by the general practitioner (GP) of a 'shared' chosen therapy might increase patients' expectations of favourable outcomes and thus contribute to recovery.
In the Netherlands, a clustered randomised controlled trial was performed to assess the effectiveness of shared decision-making followed by positive reinforcement of the chosen therapy (SDM&PR) on patient-related clinical outcomes. Overall, 68 GPs included 226 patients visiting their GP for a new episode of non-chronic low back pain. GPs in the intervention group were trained in implementing SDM&PR using a structured training programme with a focus on patient preferences in reaching treatment decisions. GPs in the control group provided care as usual. The primary outcome was the change in physical disability measured with the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMD) during the six-month follow-up after the first consultation. Physical disability (RMD), pain, adequate relief, absenteeism and healthcare consumption at 2, 6, 12 and 26 weeks were secondary outcomes. A multivariate analysis with a mixed model was used to estimate the differences in outcomes.
Of the patients in the intervention and the control groups, 66 and 62%, respectively, completed the follow-up. Most patients (77%) recovered to no functional restrictions due to back pain within 26 weeks. No significant differences in the mean scores for any outcome were observed between intervention patients and controls during the follow-up, and in multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the main outcome during the six-month follow-up. Patients in the intervention group reported more involvement in decision-making.
This study did not detect any improvement in clinical outcome or in health care consumption of patients with non-chronic low back pain after the training of GPs in SDM&PR. The implementation of SDM merely introduces task-oriented communication. The training of the GPs may have been more effective if it had focused more on patient-oriented communication techniques and on stressing the expectation of favourable outcomes.
The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) number: NTR1960. The trial was registered in the NTR on August 20, 2009.
尽管腰痛患者的康复高度依赖具体情况,但治疗方案的患者偏好很少被纳入治疗计划。共同决策(SDM)提供了一种克服这一缺陷的工具。全科医生(GP)对“共同”选择的治疗方法进行强化,可能会提高患者对良好治疗效果的期望,从而有助于康复。
在荷兰,进行了一项整群随机对照试验,以评估共同决策并随后对所选治疗方法进行积极强化(SDM&PR)对患者相关临床结局的有效性。总体而言,68名全科医生纳入了226名因新发非慢性腰痛前来就诊的患者。干预组的全科医生接受了使用结构化培训计划实施SDM&PR的培训,该计划侧重于在做出治疗决策时考虑患者偏好。对照组的全科医生照常提供护理。主要结局是在首次就诊后六个月的随访期间,使用罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷(RMD)测量的身体残疾变化。在第2、6、12和26周时的身体残疾(RMD)、疼痛、充分缓解、缺勤率和医疗保健消耗是次要结局。使用混合模型进行多变量分析来估计结局的差异。
干预组和对照组分别有66%和62%的患者完成了随访。大多数患者(77%)在26周内康复,没有因腰痛导致的功能受限。在随访期间,干预组患者和对照组之间在任何结局的平均得分上均未观察到显著差异,并且在多变量分析中,六个月随访期间的主要结局也没有显著差异。干预组的患者报告在决策过程中的参与度更高。
本研究未发现全科医生接受SDM&PR培训后,非慢性腰痛患者的临床结局或医疗保健消耗有任何改善。SDM的实施仅仅引入了以任务为导向的沟通。如果全科医生的培训更多地侧重于以患者为导向的沟通技巧以及强调对良好结局的期望,可能会更有效。
荷兰国家试验注册库(NTR)编号:NTR1960。该试验于2009年8月20日在NTR注册。