Masters Practice Projects
Permanent link for this collection
The Masters Practice Projects collection contains digital copies of AUT masters practice projects deposited with the Library since 2017 and made available open access.
Browse
Browsing Masters Practice Projects by Subject "Chronic pain"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemThe Prevalence, Characteristics and Impact of Chronic Pain in Patients with Muscular Dystrophies: A Systematic Review(Auckland University of Technology, 2020) Huang, Meihuan; Magni, Nico; Rice, DavidBackground: Chronic pain is a frequent, yet under-recognised and under-assessed problem in people with muscular dystrophies (MDs). Knowledge of the prevalence and characteristics of chronic pain, and its impact on function and quality of life is limited and lacks systematic exploration. Purpose: This study aims to systematically review and synthesise existing literature that addresses chronic pain prevalence, characteristics and impact in people with different types of MDs. Methods: A systematic search of bibliographic electronic databases was performed for articles (up to March 2020) reporting chronic pain (pain persisting ≥ 3 months) in people with MDs. Quality assessment was conducted using the Risk of Bias Tool for Prevalence Studies. Pooled estimates of pain prevalence and average pain intensity were calculated for each diagnostic group and where the number of articles was sufficient, group comparison was performed. Results: The estimated prevalence of chronic pain is similar across diagnostic groups of MDs: 68% in FSHD, 65% in DM, 62% in BMD/DMD, and 60% in LGMD. Generally, chronic pain is reported as mild to moderate by most people with FSHD and DM, with a mean value of moderate pain intensity (4.1/10 in FSHD and 4.7/10 in DM, respectively). Lower back, shoulder and legs are the most frequent sites of chronic pain among people with FSHD, DM, BMD/DMD, and LGMD, with minor variations. Diffuse pain across multiple body sites was reported by a notable proportion of these individuals. No clear pattern of pain descriptors relating to a specific diagnostic group of MDs could be identified from the included studies. Chronic pain has a negative impact on daily life activities in people with MDs, and may also contribute decreased quality of life. Occupational and domestic activities, recreational activities and mobility are the daily life domains most commonly affected by chronic pain. In children with DMD, mood may be significantly affected. Consistently, sleep is the least affected domain by chronic pain across different forms of MDs. Implications: This is the first review that systematically explores the prevalence, characteristics and impact of chronic pain in people with MDs. It is also the first to attempt to quantitatively synthesise the prevalence and pain intensity data by diagnostic groups in this population. The present study demonstrates how common chronic pain is across various MD populations and highlights the need for better recognition and understanding of the nature and impact of pain from health professionals. Future studies should focus on chronic pain in lesser explored MDs (including CMD, EDMD, OPMD and Distal MDs), geographic regions outside the USA and Europe and younger age groups. Further investigations on pain phenotypes (e.g. neuropathic vs nociceptive pain) and the associated response to treatments are also recommended.
- ItemVirtual Reality for Improving Activity Levels in People With Chronic Pain: A Feasibility Study(Auckland University of Technology, 2021) Pollard, Catherine; Tuck, Natalie; Lewis, GwynBackground People with chronic pain can develop a more sedentary lifestyle. Activity-based virtual reality (AVR) interventions may help increase activity and improve outcomes for people with chronic pain. Aim This study explored the acceptability and feasibility of AVR for improving activity levels and other pain relevant outcome measures among people with chronic pain. Participants Thirteen people with chronic musculoskeletal pain were recruited and randomised into a physiotherapy treatment as usual group (TAU) or AVR group. Design Randomised, non-blinded, pilot study involving within subject testing pre- and post-intervention. In addition, the TAU group underwent a pre-intervention waiting time to act as a control. Methods Each treatment arm (AVR, TAU or wait-time) lasted six weeks. Outcome measures were collected at the start and end of each six-week period and included self-report questionnaires, activity monitoring and physical function measures. Effect sizes were calculated and minimal clinical important differences in activity levels and pain relevant outcomes were documented where available. Feasibility was determined through recruitment and retention rates and acceptability through participant’s evaluation of sessions, perceived benefit and adherence to data collection processes. Results Recruitment was low and indicated a need for change in the exclusion criteria and recruitment sourcing when conducting a larger study. Retention rates, however, were reasonable and participants enjoyed the sessions and perceived to gain benefit from the AVR. Preliminary analysis of activity levels and other outcomes indicated that AVR was somewhat less effective than TAU, but effect sizes across the groups were small, though several limitations to the study protocol demand further research to quantify this. Conclusion The study confirmed that AVR was acceptable for a chronic pain population, but the study protocol as it stands would not be feasible for a large randomised controlled trial. Revisions may improve standardisation, and changes to the recruitment process are needed to increase participant numbers. Initial findings indicate that AVR is an enjoyable intervention for people with chronic pain, but pain relevant outcome measures did not indicate substantial differences in outcomes compared to standard physiotherapy or a waiting list control.