The effect of disease risk probability and disease type on interest in clinic-based versus direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.

The effect of disease-specific cognitions on interest in clinic-based and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing was assessed. Participants (N = 309) responded to an online hypothetical scenario and received genetic testing-related messages that varied by risk probability (25, 50, 75 %) and disease type (Alzheimer's disease vs. Type 2 Diabetes). Post-manipulation interest increased for both testing types, but was greater for clinic-based testing. Interest was greater for Type 2 Diabetes than for Alzheimer's disease, the latter perceived as more severe and likely, and less treatable and preventable. For DTC testing only, participants allocated to the high risk condition (75 %) had greater testing interest than those in the low (25 %) category. DTC testing is perceived as a viable, but less preferred, option compared with clinic-based testing. Particularly when considering DTC genetic testing, there is a need to emphasize subjective disease-related perceptions, including risk probability.

Efficacy of multidisciplinary treatment for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective clinical study in 395 patients.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment programs varies throughout the literature, and it remains controversial how therapy outcome is affected by patients' individual parameters and which treatment settings work best. OBJECTIVES: We set out to examine the impact of patient variables on the effectiveness of a 3-week multidisciplinary treatment program in patients with chronic low back pain. By presenting effect sizes, we aimed to enable the comparison of our findings with other studies across disciplines. METHODS: Data on 395 patients were prospectively collected at study entry, at the end of the program (T1) and after 6 months' follow-up (T2). Relevant therapy outcomes were analyzed by presenting effect sizes with Cohen's d. Group comparisons were performed for sociodemographic and clinical features to determine the impact on therapy outcome. RESULTS: Medium effect sizes (d = -0.6 to -0.7) were shown for visual analog scale (VAS) after treatment and at T2, indicating clinically relevant pain relief. Significant changes in pain-related disability were observed immediately at T1 with a strong treatment effect (d = 0.8). Functional capacity was improved with low to medium effect sizes (0.4-0.5). Quality-of-life subscales (36-item Short Form Health Survey) improved significantly at T1 for physical function, vitality, and mental health (d = 0.5-0.8). Center for Epidemiological Studies - Depression Scale scores improved significantly with strong effect sizes of d = 0.7. Sociodemographic parameters displayed a significant impact on effect sizes for visual analog scale at T2, with females (d = -0.9), age group 30 to 39 years (d = -1), and patients with low physical job exposure (d = -0.9) benefiting most. An increase in number of pain locations (-0.7) and severity of accompanying pain (-0.7) in other body areas significantly impaired therapy outcome and effect sizes of VAS. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, multidisciplinary treatment ameliorates pain, functional restoration, and quality of life with medium to high effect sizes even for patients with a long history of chronic back pain. Effect sizes are higher than for monodisciplinary treatments and treatment effects remained stable at 6-month follow-up in a longitudinal uncontrolled study design. Thus, we believe that multidisciplinary treatment is vital for the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain. The impact of sociodemographic and pain-related parameters needs to be taken into account when including patients in an appropriate treatment program. We emphasize the presentation of effect sizes as a vital treatment evaluation to enable cross-sectional comparison of therapy outcomes.

The impact of pain spread on the outcome of multidisciplinary therapy in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain - a prospective clinical study in 389 patients.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain represents a continuous process ranging from single-site to multiple-site pain, with an increase in pain sites accompanied by an increasing risk of chronification and the development of further comorbidities. Within this context, the impact of pain spread on therapy outcome is still unknown. AIMS: This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate whether and to what extent patients with pain at multiple sites would also benefit from multidisciplinary therapy or whether therapy success is limited by pain spread. METHODS: Patients' characteristics were assessed, including socio-demographic variables, occupational and workplace characteristics, pain intensity and dimensions of pain, psychological aspects and functional back capacity, as well as the generic health status. Data were prospectively collected at day 1 (baseline) and at 6-month follow-up from a sample of 389 patients undergoing multidisciplinary treatment. Patients were distributed into three groups based on the number of pain sites (single-site, dual-site and multiple-site) and the outcome parameters were compared. RESULTS: All three groups improved significantly from baseline to the 6-month follow-up. Compared to patients with multiple-site pain, patients with single-site and dual-site pain displayed significantly better outcome on almost all measures. Only the subcategory mental health of the SF-36 did not show any statistically significant differences among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results display that patients with two or more pain sites also improve significantly in the outcome measures. Therefore, treatment should be offered independent of the extent of pain spread. However, therapy is significantly less successful in patients with pain at multiple sites.