Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMiles, CLen_US
dc.contributor.authorPincus, Ten_US
dc.contributor.authorCarnes, Den_US
dc.contributor.authorHomer, KEen_US
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, SJCen_US
dc.contributor.authorBremner, SAen_US
dc.contributor.authorRahman, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorUnderwood, Men_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-28T16:12:20Z
dc.date.available2011-01-31en_US
dc.date.issued2011-09en_US
dc.identifier.issn1090-3801en_US
dc.identifier.other775.e1
dc.identifier.other775.e1
dc.identifier.other775.e1en_US
dc.identifier.other775.e1en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/3293
dc.description.abstractBackground: There are now several systematic reviews of RCTs testing self-management for those with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of self-management interventions in chronic musculoskeletal pain is equivocal and it is not clear for which sub-groups of patients SM is optimally effective. Aims: To systematically review randomized controlled trials of self-management for chronic musculoskeletal pain that reported predictors, i.e., ‘baseline factors that predict outcome independent of any treatment effect’; moderators, i.e., ‘baseline factors which predict benefit from a particular treatment’; or mediators i.e., ‘factors measured during treatment that impact on outcome’ of outcome. Method: We searched relevant electronic databases. We assessed the evidence according to the methodological strengths of the studies. We did meta-regression analyses for age and gender, as potential moderators. Results: Although the methodological quality of primary trials was good, there were few relevant studies; most were compromised by lack of power for moderator and mediator analyses. We found strong evidence that self-efficacy and depression at baseline predict outcome and strong evidence that pain catastrophizing and physical activity can mediate outcome from self-management. There was insufficient data on moderators of treatment. Conclusions: The current evidence suggests four factors that relate to outcome as predictors/mediators, but there is no evidence for effect moderators. Future studies of mediation and moderation should be designed with ‘a priori’ hypotheses and adequate statistical power.
dc.format.extent? - ?en_US
dc.relation.ispartofEUR J PAINen_US
dc.subjectModeratoren_US
dc.subjectSub-groupsen_US
dc.subjectPredictoren_US
dc.subjectMediatoren_US
dc.subjectSelf-managementen_US
dc.subjectRCTen_US
dc.subjectChronic painen_US
dc.subjectMusculoskeletal painen_US
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_US
dc.subjectLOW-BACK-PAINen_US
dc.subjectCOGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL TREATMENTen_US
dc.subjectRANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALen_US
dc.subjectMULTIDISCIPLINARY REHABILITATIONen_US
dc.subjectHEALTH-STATUSen_US
dc.subjectOLDER-ADULTSen_US
dc.subjectMODERATORSen_US
dc.subjectINTERVENTIONen_US
dc.subjectMETAANALYSISen_US
dc.subjectOSTEOARTHRITISen_US
dc.titleCan we identify how programmes aimed at promoting self-management in musculoskeletal pain work and who benefits? A systematic review of sub-group analysis within RCTsen_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder© 2011 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.01.016en_US
pubs.issue8en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.volume15en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record