Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (40)
- Postprint (27)
- Other (7)
- Conference Proceeding (5)
- Review (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (81)
Keywords
- yellow flags (8)
- allostatic load (6)
- low back pain (6)
- Functional ankle instability (5)
- MiSpEx (5)
- exercise (5)
- Ankle sprain (4)
- Chronic back pain (4)
- neuroplasticity (4)
- osteoporosis (4)
Institute
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (37)
- Strukturbereich Kognitionswissenschaften (16)
- Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften (10)
- Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät (10)
- Extern (7)
- Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät (2)
- Bürgerliches Recht (1)
- Department Psychologie (1)
- Hochschulambulanz (1)
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (1)
Background: As the number of cardiac diseases continuously increases within the last years in modern society, so does cardiac treatment, especially cardiac catheterization. The procedure of a cardiac catheterization is challenging for both patients and practitioners. Several potential stressors of psychological or physical nature can occur during the procedure. The objective of the study is to develop and implement a stress management intervention for both practitioners and patients that aims to reduce the psychological and physical strain of a cardiac catheterization.
Methods: The clinical study (DRKS00026624) includes two randomized controlled intervention trials with parallel groups, for patients with elective cardiac catheterization and practitioners at the catheterization lab, in two clinic sites of the Ernst-von-Bergmann clinic network in Brandenburg, Germany. Both groups received different interventions for stress management. The intervention for patients comprises a psychoeducational video with different stress management technics and additional a standardized medical information about the cardiac catheterization examination. The control condition includes the in hospitals practiced medical patient education before the examination (usual care). Primary and secondary outcomes are measured by physiological parameters and validated questionnaires, the day before (M1) and after (M2) the cardiac catheterization and at a postal follow-up 6 months later (M3). It is expected that people with standardized information and psychoeducation show reduced complications during cardiac catheterization procedures, better pre- and post-operative wellbeing, regeneration, mood and lower stress levels over time. The intervention for practitioners includes a Mindfulness-based stress reduction program (MBSR) over 8 weeks supervised by an experienced MBSR practitioner directly at the clinic site and an operative guideline. It is expected that practitioners with intervention show improved perceived and chronic stress, occupational health, physical and mental function, higher effort-reward balance, regeneration and quality of life. Primary and secondary outcomes are measured by physiological parameters (heart rate variability, saliva cortisol) and validated questionnaires and will be assessed before (M1) and after (M2) the MBSR intervention and at a postal follow-up 6 months later (M3). Physiological biomarkers in practitioners will be assessed before (M1) and after intervention (M2) on two work days and a two days off. Intervention effects in both groups (practitioners and patients) will be evaluated separately using multivariate variance analysis.
Discussion: This study evaluates the effectiveness of two stress management intervention programs for patients and practitioners within cardiac catheter laboratory. Study will disclose strains during a cardiac catheterization affecting both patients and practitioners. For practitioners it may contribute to improved working conditions and occupational safety, preservation of earning capacity, avoidance of participation restrictions and loss of performance. In both groups less anxiety, stress and complications before and during the procedures can be expected. The study may add knowledge how to eliminate stressful exposures and to contribute to more (psychological) security, less output losses and exhaustion during work. The evolved stress management guidelines, training manuals and the standardized patient education should be transferred into clinical routines
Background: As the number of cardiac diseases continuously increases within the last years in modern society, so does cardiac treatment, especially cardiac catheterization. The procedure of a cardiac catheterization is challenging for both patients and practitioners. Several potential stressors of psychological or physical nature can occur during the procedure. The objective of the study is to develop and implement a stress management intervention for both practitioners and patients that aims to reduce the psychological and physical strain of a cardiac catheterization.
Methods: The clinical study (DRKS00026624) includes two randomized controlled intervention trials with parallel groups, for patients with elective cardiac catheterization and practitioners at the catheterization lab, in two clinic sites of the Ernst-von-Bergmann clinic network in Brandenburg, Germany. Both groups received different interventions for stress management. The intervention for patients comprises a psychoeducational video with different stress management technics and additional a standardized medical information about the cardiac catheterization examination. The control condition includes the in hospitals practiced medical patient education before the examination (usual care). Primary and secondary outcomes are measured by physiological parameters and validated questionnaires, the day before (M1) and after (M2) the cardiac catheterization and at a postal follow-up 6 months later (M3). It is expected that people with standardized information and psychoeducation show reduced complications during cardiac catheterization procedures, better pre- and post-operative wellbeing, regeneration, mood and lower stress levels over time. The intervention for practitioners includes a Mindfulness-based stress reduction program (MBSR) over 8 weeks supervised by an experienced MBSR practitioner directly at the clinic site and an operative guideline. It is expected that practitioners with intervention show improved perceived and chronic stress, occupational health, physical and mental function, higher effort-reward balance, regeneration and quality of life. Primary and secondary outcomes are measured by physiological parameters (heart rate variability, saliva cortisol) and validated questionnaires and will be assessed before (M1) and after (M2) the MBSR intervention and at a postal follow-up 6 months later (M3). Physiological biomarkers in practitioners will be assessed before (M1) and after intervention (M2) on two work days and a two days off. Intervention effects in both groups (practitioners and patients) will be evaluated separately using multivariate variance analysis.
Discussion: This study evaluates the effectiveness of two stress management intervention programs for patients and practitioners within cardiac catheter laboratory. Study will disclose strains during a cardiac catheterization affecting both patients and practitioners. For practitioners it may contribute to improved working conditions and occupational safety, preservation of earning capacity, avoidance of participation restrictions and loss of performance. In both groups less anxiety, stress and complications before and during the procedures can be expected. The study may add knowledge how to eliminate stressful exposures and to contribute to more (psychological) security, less output losses and exhaustion during work. The evolved stress management guidelines, training manuals and the standardized patient education should be transferred into clinical routines
Background
Recent research emphasized the role of inflammatory processes in the pathophysiology of depression. Theories hypothesizes that life events (LE) can affect the immune system and trigger depressive symptoms. LE are also considered as one of the best predictors for the onset and course of depressive disorders.
Methods
Observational study across three treatment settings: n=208 depressive patients (75.5%f, M 46.6 y) were examined on depression (BDI-II), life events (ILE) and inflammatory markers (IL-6, CRP, fibrinogen, ICAM-1, TNF-alpha, E-selectin) at baseline (t0), 5-week(t1) and 5-month(t2) follow-up. Effects and interactions were analyzed with regression models.
Results
LE were associated with depressive symptoms at t0 (beta=.209; p=.002) and both follow-ups. Except for CRP, which was linked to depression symptoms at t2 (betai=-.190; p=.032), there were no effects of inflammatory markers on depressive symptoms. At t1, an interaction between CRP and LE in total (beta=-.249; p=.041) was found as well as for LE in the past five years (beta=-.122; p=.027). Similar interactions were found between cumulative LE and ICAM-1 (beta=-.197; p=.003) and IL-6 (beta=-.425; p=.001).
Conclusion
The cumulative burden of LE effects symptoms and treatment outcome in depressive patients. There is some evidence that inflammatory marker may have long-term effects on treatment outcome as they seem to weaken the determining relation between LE and depression.
The relationships between sedentary lifestyle, sitting behaviour, and low back pain (LBP) remain controversial. In this study, we investigated the relationship between back pain and occupational sitting habits in 64 call-centre employees. A textile pressure mat was used to evaluate and parameterise sitting behaviour over a total of 400 h, while pain questionnaires evaluated acute and chronic LBP. Seventy-five percent of the participants reported some level of either chronic or acute back pain. Individuals with chronic LBP demonstrated a possible trend (t-test not significant) towards more static sitting behaviour compared to their pain-free counterparts. Furthermore, a greater association was found between sitting behaviour and chronic LBP than for acute pain/disability, which is plausibly due to a greater awareness of pain-free sitting positions in individuals with chronic pain compared to those affected by acute pain.
Background
In health research, indicators of socioeconomic status (SES) are often used interchangeably and often lack theoretical foundation. This makes it difficult to compare results from different studies and to explore the relationship between SES and health outcomes. To aid researchers in choosing appropriate indicators of SES, this article proposes and tests a theory-based selection of SES indicators using chronic back pain as a health outcome.
Methods
Strength of relationship predictions were made using Brunner & Marmot’s model of ‘social determinants of health’. Subsequently, a longitudinal study was conducted with 66 patients receiving in-patient treatment for chronic back pain. Sociodemographic variables, four SES indicators (education, job position, income, multidimensional index) and back pain intensity and disability were obtained at baseline. Both pain dimensions were assessed again 6 months later. Using linear regression, the predictive strength of each SES indicator on pain intensity and disability was estimated and compared to the theory based prediction.
Results
Chronic back pain intensity was best predicted by the multidimensional index (beta = 0.31, p < 0.05), followed by job position (beta = 0.29, p < 0.05) and education (beta = −0.29, p < 0.05); whereas, income exerted no significant influence. Back pain disability was predicted strongest by education (beta = −0.30, p < 0.05) and job position (beta = 0.29, p < 0.05). Here, multidimensional index and income had no significant influence.
Conclusions
The choice of SES indicators influences predictive power on both back pain dimensions, suggesting SES predictors cannot be used interchangeably. Therefore, researchers should carefully consider prior to each study which SES indicator to use. The introduced framework can be valuable in supporting this decision because it allows for a stable prediction of SES indicator influence and their hierarchy on a specific health outcomes.
Background
In health research, indicators of socioeconomic status (SES) are often used interchangeably and often lack theoretical foundation. This makes it difficult to compare results from different studies and to explore the relationship between SES and health outcomes. To aid researchers in choosing appropriate indicators of SES, this article proposes and tests a theory-based selection of SES indicators using chronic back pain as a health outcome.
Methods
Strength of relationship predictions were made using Brunner & Marmot’s model of ‘social determinants of health’. Subsequently, a longitudinal study was conducted with 66 patients receiving in-patient treatment for chronic back pain. Sociodemographic variables, four SES indicators (education, job position, income, multidimensional index) and back pain intensity and disability were obtained at baseline. Both pain dimensions were assessed again 6 months later. Using linear regression, the predictive strength of each SES indicator on pain intensity and disability was estimated and compared to the theory based prediction.
Results
Chronic back pain intensity was best predicted by the multidimensional index (beta = 0.31, p < 0.05), followed by job position (beta = 0.29, p < 0.05) and education (beta = −0.29, p < 0.05); whereas, income exerted no significant influence. Back pain disability was predicted strongest by education (beta = −0.30, p < 0.05) and job position (beta = 0.29, p < 0.05). Here, multidimensional index and income had no significant influence.
Conclusions
The choice of SES indicators influences predictive power on both back pain dimensions, suggesting SES predictors cannot be used interchangeably. Therefore, researchers should carefully consider prior to each study which SES indicator to use. The introduced framework can be valuable in supporting this decision because it allows for a stable prediction of SES indicator influence and their hierarchy on a specific health outcomes.
Objective: To investigate associations between socioeconomic status (SES) indicators (education, job position, income, multidimensional index) and the genesis of chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Design: Longitudinal field study (baseline and 6-month follow-up).
Setting: Four medical clinics across Germany.
Participants: 352 people were included according to the following criteria: (1) between 18 and 65 years of age, (2) intermittent pain and (3) an understanding of the study and the ability to answer a questionnaire without help. Exclusion criteria were: (1) pregnancy, (2) inability to stand upright, (3) inability to give sick leave information, (4) signs of serious spinal pathology, (5) acute pain in the past 7 days or (6) an incomplete SES indicators questionnaire.
Outcome measures: Subjective intensity and disability of CLBP.
Results Analysis: showed that job position was the best single predictor of CLBP intensity, followed by a multidimensional index. Education and income had no significant association with intensity. Subjective disability was best predicted by job position, succeeded by the multidimensional index and education, while income again had no significant association.
Conclusion: The results showed that SES indicators have different strong associations with the genesis of CLBP and should therefore not be used interchangeably. Job position was found to be the single most important indicator. These results could be helpful in the planning of back pain care programmes, but in general, more research on the relationship between SES and health outcomes is needed.
Objective: To investigate associations between socioeconomic status (SES) indicators (education, job position, income, multidimensional index) and the genesis of chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Design: Longitudinal field study (baseline and 6-month follow-up).
Setting: Four medical clinics across Germany.
Participants: 352 people were included according to the following criteria: (1) between 18 and 65 years of age, (2) intermittent pain and (3) an understanding of the study and the ability to answer a questionnaire without help. Exclusion criteria were: (1) pregnancy, (2) inability to stand upright, (3) inability to give sick leave information, (4) signs of serious spinal pathology, (5) acute pain in the past 7 days or (6) an incomplete SES indicators questionnaire.
Outcome measures: Subjective intensity and disability of CLBP.
Results: Analysis showed that job position was the best single predictor of CLBP intensity, followed by a multidimensional index. Education and income had no significant association with intensity. Subjective disability was best predicted by job position, succeeded by the multidimensional index and education, while income again had no significant association.
Conclusion: The results showed that SES indicators have different strong associations with the genesis of CLBP and should therefore not be used interchangeably. Job position was found to be the single most important indicator. These results could be helpful in the planning of back pain care programmes, but in general, more research on the relationship between SES and health outcomes is needed.