Mindful Walking in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Aim: The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a mindful walking program (MWP) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods: The trial was a two-armed, randomized, controlled single-center open clinical trial. The study was performed in the Outpatient Clinic for Integrative Medicine of the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The participants were adults aged 18-65 years with CLBP (≥3 months) and an average low back pain within the past 7 days measured on a visual analog scale (VAS, 0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain) of at least 40 mm. The patients received either eight weekly MWP sessions or no intervention (control). The primary outcome was the perceived pain intensity assessed with a VAS (0-100 mm) after 8 weeks. The secondary outcomes included back function assessed by the Hannover Functional Questionnaire Backache (FFbH-R) and perceived stress assessed by the 14-item Cohen's Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-14). The results were obtained by analysis of covariance adjusted for the respective baseline values. Results: In total, 55 patients were randomized (MWP: n = 29, 82.8% female, mean (±standard deviation) age: 52.5 ± 8.6 years, pain: 56.4 ± 14.1 mm; control: n = 26, 84.6% female, 54.8 ± 7.5 years, pain: 55.4 ± 13.1 mm). After 8 weeks, compared with the control conditions, the MWP was not associated with a statistically significant benefit for pain (VAS), adjusted mean - 9.6 [-22.3 to 3.1], p = 0.136, clinical benefits for back function (FFbH-R), adjusted mean 2.2 [-4.2 to 8.6], p = 0.493, or stress (PSS-14), adjusted mean - 1.6 [-4.8 to 1.6], p = 0.326. Conclusion: In conclusion, compared with no intervention, mindful walking did not significantly improve pain, back function, or perceived stress in patients with CLBP. Clinical Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01893073).

To what extent are psychiatrists aware of the comorbid somatic illnesses of their patients with serious mental illnesses? - a cross-sectional secondary data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Somatic comorbidities are a serious problem in patients with severe mental illnesses. These comorbidities often remain undiagnosed for a long time. In Germany, physicians are not allowed to access patients' health insurance data and do not have routine access to documentation from other providers of health care. Against this background, the objective of this article was to investigate psychiatrists' knowledge of relevant somatic comorbidities in their patients with severe mental illnesses. METHODS: Cross-sectional secondary data analysis was performed using primary data from a prospective study evaluating a model of integrated care of patients with serious mental illnesses. The primary data were linked with claims data from health insurers. Patients' diagnoses were derived on the basis of the ICD-10 and the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. Diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), hyperlipidaemia, glaucoma, osteoporosis, polyarthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were selected for evaluation. We compared the number of diagnoses reported in the psychiatrists' clinical report forms with those in the health insurance data. RESULTS: The study evaluated records from 1,195 patients with severe mental illnesses. The frequency of documentation of hypertension ranged from 21% in claims data to 4% in psychiatrists' documentation, for COPD from 12 to 0%, respectively, and for diabetes from 7 to 2%, respectively. The percentage of diagnoses deduced from claims data but not documented by psychiatrists ranged from 68% for diabetes and 83% for hypertension, to 90% for CAD to 98% for COPD. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of psychiatrists participating in the integrated care programme were insufficiently aware of the somatic comorbidities of their patients. We support allowing physicians to access patients' entire medical records to increase their knowledge of patients' medical histories and, consequently, to increase the safety and quality of care.

Quality of Life in Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: A Systematic Review.

Despite the indisputable mortality advantages of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), no consensus exists regarding their impact on quality of life (QoL). This systematic review investigates differences in QoL between patients with ICDs and controls. We systematically searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and PsychINFO databases. Articles were included if they were published after the year 2000 and reported on original studies with a control group. Five randomized controlled trials with a total of 5,138 patients and 10 observational studies with a total of 1,513 patients met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies found comparable QoL for ICD recipients and patients in the control groups, three studies found an increased QoL for ICD patients, and three studies found a decreased QoL for ICD patients. The question of whether QoL relates to ICD therapy cannot be answered conclusively due to the heterogeneity of the existing studies. Lower QoL was apparent among patients with an ICD who experienced several device discharges. Medical staff should be particularly aware of the signs of both psychological and physical disorders in these patients. Further investigations on QoL in ICD patients are desirable, but ethical reasons restrict the conduct of randomized trials.