SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: EFFECTS OF WALKING EXERCISE IN CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS: EFFECTS OF WALKING EXERCISE IN CHRONIC MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN O'Connor S.R.1, Tully M.A.2, Ryan B.3, Baxter D.G.3, Bradley J.M.1, McDonough S.M.11University of Ulster, Health & Rehabilitation Sciences Research Institute, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom, 2Queen's University, UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health (NI), Belfast, United Kingdom, 3University of Otago, Centre for Physiotherapy Research, Dunedin, New ZealandPurpose: To examine the effects of walking exercise on pain and self-reported function in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.Relevance: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a major cause of morbidity, exerting a substantial influence on long-term health status and overall quality of life. Current treatment recommendations advocate various aerobic exercise interventions for such conditions. Walking may represent an ideal form of exercise due to its relatively low impact. However, there is currently limited evidence for its effectiveness.Participants: Not applicable.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was undertaken by two independent reviewers according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the recommendations of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group. Six electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PEDro, Sport DISCUS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for relevant papers published up to January 2010 using MeSH terms. All randomised or non-randomised studies published in full were considered for inclusion. Studies were required to include adults aged 18 years or over with a diagnosis of chronic low back pain, osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia. Studies were excluded if they involved peri-operative or post-operative interventions or did not include a comparative, non exercise or non-walking exercise control group. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force system was used to assess methodological quality. Data for pain and self-reported function were extracted and converted to a score out of 100.Analysis: Data were pooled and analyzed using RevMan (v.5.0.24). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the X2 and I2 test statistics. A random effects model was used to calculate the mean differences and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed by length of final follow-up which was categorized as short (≤8 weeks post randomisation), mid (2-12 months) or long-term (>12 months).Results: A total of 4324 articles were identified and twenty studies (1852 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Overall, studies were judged to be of at least fair methodological quality. The most common sources of likely bias were identified as lack of concealed allocation and failure to adequately address incomplete data. Data from 12 studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Walking led to reductions in pain at short (<8 weeks post randomisation) (-8.44 [-14.54, -2.33]) and mid-term (>8 weeks - 12 month) follow-up (-9.28 [-16.34, -2.22]). No effect was observed for long-term (>12 month) data (-2.49 [-7.62, 2.65]). For function, between group differences were observed for short (-11.57 [-16.06, -7.08]) and mid-term data (-13.26 [-16.91, -9.62]). A smaller effect was also observed at long-term follow-up (-5.60 [-7.70, -3.50]).Conclusions: Walking interventions were associated with statistically significant improvements in pain and function at short and mid-term follow-up. Long-term data were limited but indicated that these effects do not appear to be maintained beyond twelve months.Implications: Walking may be an effective form of exercise for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. However, further research is required which examines longer term follow-up and dose-response issues in this population.Key-words: 1. Walking exercise 2. Musculoskeletal pain 3. Systematic reviewFunding acknowledgements: Department of Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland.Ethics approval: Not applicable.

The effectiveness of a nurse practitioner-led pain management team in long-term care: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: Considering the high rates of pain as well as its under-management in long-term care (LTC) settings, research is needed to explore innovations in pain management that take into account limited resource realities. It has been suggested that nurse practitioners, working within an inter-professional model, could potentially address the under-management of pain in LTC.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effectiveness of implementing a nurse practitioner-led, inter-professional pain management team in LTC in improving (a) pain-related resident outcomes; (b) clinical practice behaviours (e.g., documentation of pain assessments, use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions); and, (c) quality of pain medication prescribing practices.

METHODS: A mixed method design was used to evaluate a nurse practitioner-led pain management team, including both a quantitative and qualitative component. Using a controlled before-after study, six LTC homes were allocated to one of three groups: 1) a nurse practitioner-led pain team (full intervention); 2) nurse practitioner but no pain management team (partial intervention); or, 3) no nurse practitioner, no pain management team (control group). In total, 345 LTC residents were recruited to participate in the study; 139 residents for the full intervention group, 108 for the partial intervention group, and 98 residents for the control group. Data was collected in Canada from 2010 to 2012.

RESULTS: Implementing a nurse practitioner-led pain team in LTC significantly reduced residents' pain and improved functional status compared to usual care without access to a nurse practitioner. Positive changes in clinical practice behaviours (e.g., assessing pain, developing care plans related to pain management, documenting effectiveness of pain interventions) occurred over the intervention period for both the nurse practitioner-led pain team and nurse practitioner-only groups; these changes did not occur to the same extent, if at all, in the control group. Qualitative analysis highlighted the perceived benefits of LTC staff about having access to a nurse practitioner and benefits of the pain team, along with barriers to managing pain in LTC.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study showed that implementing a nurse practitioner-led pain team can significantly improve resident pain and functional status as well as clinical practice behaviours of LTC staff. LTC homes should employ a nurse practitioner, ideally located onsite as opposed to an offsite consultative role, to enhance inter-professional collaboration and facilitate more consistent and timely access to pain management.