Treatment Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in Chronic Low Back Pain: a Systematic Review
Diana Rofail*, Lynn Myers and Dan Froggatt
Department of Psychology, Brunel University, UK
- Corresponding Author:
- Diana Rofail
Roche Products LTD, Hexagon Place
6 Falcon Way, Shire Park, Welwyn Garden City
Hertfordshire, AL7 1TW, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: July 23, 2015; Accepted Date: May 10, 2016; Published Date: May 19, 2016
Citation: Rofail D, Myers L, Froggatt D (2016) Treatment Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in Chronic Low Back Pain: a Systematic Review. J Psychol Psychother 6:260. doi:10.4172/2161-0487.1000260
Copyright: © 2016 Rofail D, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Background: This paper documents a systematic review of treatment satisfaction and dissatisfaction in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP). Research shows that treatment satisfaction is a strong indicator of adherence to treatment regimens; hence the relevant need for this systematic review of current literature.
Objectives: This paper aims to: i) explore patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction with treatments for CLBP; ii) establish definitions of treatment satisfaction and dissatisfaction in CLBP; iii) provide an overview of questionnaires used to measure the concepts; iv) establish the quality of studies reviewed; v) determine the level of patient satisfaction or dissatisfaction with treatments in CLBP; and vi) identify factors associated with treatment satisfaction or dissatisfaction in CLBP.
Methods: A systematic review of scientific papers in the PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Knowledge electronic databases was undertaken in combination with hand searches in the journals of Pain, Physiotherapy and Spine. The review was limited to quantitative studies in the area of patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction with treatment.
Results: Twenty-seven papers were selected for systematic review. Results indicated a paucity of studies of patient satisfaction with treatment in CLBP. The quality of studies included in the review was mixed, making comparisons and generalisations problematic. Our results showed largely positive but also some negative views towards the treatment of CLBP.
Conclusions: The measurement of patient satisfaction in CLBP makes it possible for health professionals to target features of the patient’s treatment that cause them distress (such as experiencing side effects), and may contribute to the maintenance and improvement of their health. Findings from this review indicate the necessity to develop a measure specific to patient satisfaction with treatment in CLBP. The instrument needs to be based on a standard operational definition and a conceptual framework, and have good content validity and psychometric properties.