Providing information for young people in sexual health clinics: getting it right

Background. The need to improve the quality and availability of information on sexual health is identified as a key element in achieving the aims set out in the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV. Providing information about sexual health to young people poses particular challenges because of the sensitive nature of the issues and because of the difficulties that young people may face in sourcing information and asking questions of professionals. Objective. To explore the views of young people attending sexual health services on several aspects of service delivery, including provision of information. Method. Twenty-five in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of young people attending a range of different outlets for sexual health care. Results. This research revealed important information about the ways in which the type, format, tone and design of health promotion materials and the methods used to impart information to young people has a strong impact on client satisfaction during visits to sexual health services. Conclusions. Young people vary greatly in their needs for sexual health information in terms of level, extent and manner of provision. Passive acceptance of information should not be taken to indicate tacit satisfaction with level and complexity. Written information needs to be used in conjunction with face-to-face discussion. Effective provision of sexual health information impacts notably on client satisfaction. Pitched at the right level, sexual health information has considerable potential to enhance sexual health status

Randomized Clinical-Trial of Manipulative Therapy and Physiotherapy for Persistent Back and Neck Complaints - Results of One Year Follow-Up

Objective - To compare the effectiveness of manipulative therapy, physiotherapy, treatment by the general practitioner, and placebo therapy in patients with persistent non-specific back and neck complaints. Design - Randomised clinical trial. Setting-Primary health care in the Netherlands. Patients-256 patients with non-specific back and neck complaints of at least six weeks' duration who had not received physiotherapy or manipulative therapy in the past two years. Interventions - At the discretion of the manipulative therapists, physiotherapists, and general practitioners. Physiotherapy consisted of exercises, massage, and physical therapy (heat, electrotherapy, ultrasound, shortwave diathermy). Manipulative therapy consisted of manipulation and mobilisation of the spine. Treatment by general practitioners consisted of drugs (for example, analgesics), advice about posture, home exercises, and (bed)rest. Placebo treatment consisted of detuned shortwave diathermy (10 minutes) and detuned ultrasound (10 minutes). Main outcome measures - Changes in severity of the main complaint and limitation of physical functioning measured on 10 point scales by a blinded research assistant and global perceived effect measured on a 6 point scale by the patients. Results - Many patients in the general practitioner and placebo groups received other treatment during follow up. Improvement in the main complaint was larger with manipulative therapy (4·5) than with physiotherapy (3·8) after 12 months' follow up (difference 0·9; 95% confidence interval 0·1 to 1·7). Manipulative therapy also gave larger improvements in physical functioning (difference 0·6; -0·1 to 1·3). The global perceived effect after six and 12 months' follow up was similar for both treatments. Conclusions - Manipulative therapy and physiotherapy are better than general practitioner and placebo treatment. Furthermore, manipulative therapy is slightly better than physiotherapy after 12 months

超伝導技術を応用した近未来船

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most disabling and costly disorders affecting modern society, and approximately 90% of patients are labelled as having non-specific LBP (NSLBP). Several interventions for patients with NSLBP have been assessed in clinical trials, but heterogeneous reporting of outcomes in these trials has hindered comparison of results and performance of meta-analyses. Moreover, there is a risk of selective outcome reporting bias. To address these issues, the development of a core outcome set (COS) that should be measured in all clinical trials for a specific health condition has been recommended. A standardized set of outcomes for LBP was proposed in 1998, however, with evolution in COS development methodology, new instruments, interventions, and understanding of measurement properties, it is appropriate to update that proposal. This protocol describes the methods used in the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP, namely, establishing a core domain set that should be measured in all clinical trials. Methods/Design: An International Steering Committee including researchers, clinicians, and patient representatives from four continents was formed to guide the development of this COS. The approach of initiatives like Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) was followed. Participants were invited to participate in a Delphi study aimed at generating a consensus-based core domain set for NSLBP. A list of potential core domains was drafted and presented to the Delphi participants who were asked to judge which domains were core. Participant suggestions about overlap, aggregation, or addition of potential core domains were addressed during the study. The patients' responses were isolated to assess whether there was substantial disagreement with the rest of the Delphi panel. A priori thresholds for consensus were established before each Delphi round. All participants' responses were analysed from a quantitative and qualitative perspective to ascertain that no substantial discrepancies between the two approaches emerged. Discussion: We present the initial step in developing a COS for NSLBP. The next step will be to determine which measurement instruments adequately cover the domains

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low back pain: an updated cochrane review

Study Design. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. ObjectiveS. To assess the effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of nonspecific low back pain and to assess which type of NSAID is most effective. Summart of Background Data. NSAIDs are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are widely used for patients with low back pain. Selective COX-2 inhibitors are currently available and used for patients with low back pain. Methods. We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to and including June 2007 if reported in English, Dutch, or German. We also screened references given in relevant reviews and identified trials. Randomized trials and double-blind controlled trials of NSAIDs in nonspecific low back pain with or without sciatica were included. Results. In total, 65 trials (total number of patients = 11,237) were included in this review. Twenty-eight trials (42%) were considered high quality. Statistically significant effects were found in favor of NSAIDs compared with placebo, but at the cost of statistically significant more side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than paracetamol for acute low back pain, but paracetamol had fewer side effects. There is moderate evidence that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs for acute low back pain. There is strong evidence that various types of NSAIDs, including COX-2 NSAIDs, are equally effective for acute low back pain. COX-2 NSAIDs had statistically significantly fewer side effects than traditional NSAIDs. Conclusion. The evidence from the 65 trials included in this review suggests that NSAIDs are effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low back pain without sciatica. However, effect sizes are small. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a specific type of NSAID, which is clearly more effective than others. The selective COX-2 inhibitors showed fewer side effects compared with traditional NSAIDs in the randomized controlled trials included in this review. However, recent studies have shown that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with increased cardiovascular risks in specific patient populations. © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group

Study Design. Method guideline for systematic reviews of trials of interventions for neck and back pain, and related spinal disorders. Objective. To help authors design, conduct, and report systematic reviews of trials in this field. Summary of Background Data. In 1997, the Cochrane Back Review Group editorial board published the Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews, which was updated in 2003 and in 2009. Since then, new methodological evidence has emerged and standards have changed, therefore it was clear that revisions were needed to the 2009 guideline. In May 2015 the group changed its name to Cochrane Back and Neck. Methods. The editorial board met in September 2014 to review the relevant new methodological evidence and determine how it should be incorporated. Members of the advisory board were consulted. Based on the feedback received, an updated method guideline was prepared and approved by the editorial board. Results. We have updated recommendations in 7 categories: objectives, literature search, selection criteria, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, data analysis, and reporting of results and conclusions. Each category is classified into minimum criteria (mandatory) and further guidance (optional). This update also includes some new guidance for preparation of summary of finding tables and for conducting nonintervention reviews. Conclusion. Citations of previous versions of the method guideline in published scientific articles (1193 in total) suggest that others may find this guideline useful to plan, conduct, or evaluate systematic reviews in the field of back and neck pain, and spinal disorders

Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change

STUDY DESIGN. Literature review, expert panel, and a workshop during the "VIII International Forum on Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain" (Amsterdam, June 2006). OBJECTIVE. To develop practical guidance regarding the minimal important change (MIC) on frequently used measures of pain and functional status for low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Empirical studies have tried to determine meaningful changes for back pain, using different methodologies. This has led to confusion about what change is clinically important for commonly used back pain outcome measures. METHODS. This study covered the Visual Analogue Scale (0-100) and the Numerical Rating Scale (0-10) for pain and for function, the Roland Disability Questionnaire (0-24), the Oswestry Disability Index (0-100), and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (0-100). The literature was reviewed for empirical evidence. Additionally, experts and participants of the VIII International Forum on Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain were consulted to develop international consensus on clinical interpretation. RESULTS. There was wide variation in study design and the methods used to estimate MICs, and in values found for MIC, where MIC is the improvement in clinical status of an individual patient. However, after discussion among experts and workshop participants a reasonable consensus was achieved. Proposed MIC values are: 15 for the Visual Analogue Scale, 2 for the Numerical Rating Scale, 5 for the Roland Disability Questionnaire, 10 for the Oswestry Disability Index, and 20 for the QBDQ. When the baseline score is taken into account, a 30% improvement was considered a useful threshold for identifying clinically meaningful improvement on each of these measures. CONCLUSION. For a range of commonly used back pain outcome measures, a 30% change from baseline may be considered clinically meaningful improvement when comparing before and after measures for individual patients. It is hoped that these proposals facilitate the use of these measures in clinical practice and the comparability of future studies. The proposed MIC values are not the final answer but offer a common starting point for future research. © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc