Psychological intervention

About: Psychological intervention is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 82654 publications have been published within this topic receiving 2608356 citations.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain

Abstract: Background Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds. Objectives To review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term. Search methods We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review. Selection criteria All studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds. Data collection and analysis Two review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity. Main results From 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions. Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity. Authors' conclusions Patients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.

Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector

Abstract: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease. The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor.

The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework: a global, crosscutting framework to inform research, intervention development, and policy on health-related stigmas

Abstract: Stigma is a well-documented barrier to health seeking behavior, engagement in care and adherence to treatment across a range of health conditions globally. In order to halt the stigmatization process and mitigate the harmful consequences of health-related stigma (i.e. stigma associated with health conditions), it is critical to have an explicit theoretical framework to guide intervention development, measurement, research, and policy. Existing stigma frameworks typically focus on one health condition in isolation and often concentrate on the psychological pathways occurring among individuals. This tendency has encouraged a siloed approach to research on health-related stigmas, focusing on individuals, impeding both comparisons across stigmatized conditions and research on innovations to reduce health-related stigma and improve health outcomes. We propose the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework, which is a global, crosscutting framework based on theory, research, and practice, and demonstrate its application to a range of health conditions, including leprosy, epilepsy, mental health, cancer, HIV, and obesity/overweight. We also discuss how stigma related to race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and occupation intersects with health-related stigmas, and examine how the framework can be used to enhance research, programming, and policy efforts. Research and interventions inspired by a common framework will enable the field to identify similarities and differences in stigma processes across diseases and will amplify our collective ability to respond effectively and at-scale to a major driver of poor health outcomes globally.