Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to K Lorig.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: To determine 4-month and 1-year health-related outcomes of a 6-week, lay-led, and community-based arthritis self-management program for Spanish-speaking participants and to determine the role of self-efficacy in predicting health status for this population. METHODS: Three hundred and thirty one subjects were randomized to the program or to a 4-month wait list control group. One hundred ninety eight subjects continued in a 1-year longitudinal study. Data were collected via mailed questionnaires with telephone follow up. RESULTS: At 4 months, treatment subjects, compared with controls, demonstrated positive changes in exercise, disability, pain, and self-efficacy (P < 0.05). At 1 year, compared with baseline, treatment subjects demonstrated improvements in exercise, general health, disability, pain, self-efficacy, and depression (P < 0.05). Baseline and 4-month changes in self-efficacy predicted health status at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Spanish-speaking participants of an arthritis self-management program demonstrate short- and long-term benefits (improved health behaviors, health status, and self-efficacy).
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a four-session self-management group intervention for patients with pain in primary care, led by trained lay persons with back pain. The intervention was designed to reduce patient worries, encourage self-care, and reduce activity limitations. BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized trials of educational interventions suggest that activating interventions may improve back pain outcomes. Expert opinion increasingly regards effective self-management of back pain as important in achieving good outcomes. In this study, an educational intervention designed to activate patients and support effective self-management was evaluated. METHODS: Six to 8 weeks after a primary care visit for back pain, patients were invited to participate in an educational program to improve back pain self-management. Those showing interest by returning a brief questionnaire became eligible for the study. Participants (n = 255) randomly were assigned to either a self-management group intervention or to a usual care control group. The effect of the intervention, relative to usual care, was assessed 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization, controlling for baseline values. The intervention consisted of a four-session group applying problem-solving techniques to back pain self-management, supplemented by educational materials (book and videos) supporting active management of back pain. The groups were led by lay persons trained to implement a fully structured group protocol. The control group received usual care, supplemented by a book on back pain care. RESULTS: Participants randomly assigned to the self-management groups reported significantly less worry about back pain and expressed more confidence in self-care. Roland Disability Questionnaire Scores were significantly lower among participants in the self-management groups relative to the usual care controls at 6 months (P = 0.007), and this difference was sustained at 12 months at borderline significance levels (P = 0.09). Among self-management group participants, 48% showed a 50% or greater reduction in Roland Disability Questionnaire Score at 6 months, compared with 33% among the usual care controls. CONCLUSIONS: Self-management groups led by trained lay persons following a structured protocol were more effective than usual care in reducing worries, producing positive attitudes toward self-care, and reducing activity limitations among patients with back pain in primary care.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: 1) Determine strengths and weaknesses of the Arthritis Self-Management Program (ASMP). 2) Compare 3- and 6-week ASMP. 3) Evaluate 1.5-hour arthritis program. METHODS: Study 1: Qualitative methods incorporating incomplete block design. Study 2: Comparison of 3- and 6-week outcomes. Study 3: Pretest/posttest comparison. RESULTS: Study 1: Pain management, exercise, and sharing ranked as the most useful aspects of the ASMP. Nutrition, medications, and making decisions about nontraditional treatments ranked least useful. Study 2: Six-week ASMP subjects improved pain, health distress, illness impact, exercise, cognitive pain management, self-efficacy, and reduced visits to physicians (P < 0.05). Three-week subjects improved health distress, cognitive pain management, and self-efficacy (P < 0.05). Study 3: Improved knowledge, self-efficacy, and pain (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The traditional 6-week ASMP is more effective than a 3-week version. A 1.5-hour community program is effective in increasing knowledge, self-efficacy, and contact with the Arthritis Foundation.
This study examined factors that influence youth participation in heart disease prevention activities among 2,609 ninth graders in six inner-city public high schools. Constructs derived from social cognitive, empowerment, and community development theories informed the conceptual framework employed. Study participants were diverse with respect to gender, ethnicity, parent education, acculturation, and academic achievement. Perceived incentive value, self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, sense of community, and perceived policy control were all significantly associated with participation in community activities promoting heart health. In multivariate analyses, perceived incentive value, defined as the extent to which participants valued a heart-healthy environment, was most strongly associated with community participation, accounting for 11.9% of the total variance. These findings have implications for designing school curricula and after-school and community programs targeting adolescents' involvement in health advocacy activities.
The development of instruments for use in culturally diverse settings and populations really involves much more than mere translation. Measurements must be tested for content validity and appropriate meaning among members of the group to be studied. Attention to issues of validity, reliability, and cross-cultural differences will lead to effective assessment, culturally competent health care, and the enhancement of the client/provider relationship. The concerns surrounding the use of quantitative measurement in diverse cultural groups are substantial. While the refinement of scales to meet the needs of various groups is a challenging task, such effort is essential to the diagnosis of disease, determination of health status, and the measurement of health outcomes in the diverse subgroups of this country's population.
Systematic development and testing of the efficacy of educational interventions to improve functioning, prevent disability, and reduce the impact of chronic disease has been limited, perhaps because many chronic diseases disable, do not kill, and because they are managed largely within home, work, and community environments and not within the medical care system. Until recently, these factors contributed to a paucity of arthritis educational interventions. But since the impetus provided by the establishment of the Multipurpose Arthritis Centers Program of the NIH (1977), a number of arthritis patient education programs have been established and evaluated. This chapter summarizes findings from community-based arthritis patient education studies conducted between 1980 and 1995, critiques the methods of these studies, and provides guidance for state-of-the-art community-based intervention research aimed at reducing the individual and social impact of arthritis and other chronic diseases.
OBJECTIVE: To produce Spanish versions of common arthritis outcome measures: the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Scale, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Pain Severity Scale, the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale for Pain and Other Symptoms (with the addition of 2 new items), the Visual Analogue Pain Scale, the MOS Self-Rated Health Item, and a Physical Activities Scale that would be usable by most Hispanics living in the US. We tested these translated measures for reliability and, where appropriate, validity. METHODS: Instruments were translated and back translated by bilingual persons from 5 different countries of origin. Translators met to resolve variations in translation. The instruments were then administered to Hispanic arthritis patients in 6 geographic locations (5 in the United States and 1 in Latin America). All instruments underwent standard psychometric testing. As appropriate, the sample was stratified by level of acculturation, nation of origin, and geographic location. RESULTS: The translated instruments, with slight modification, met acceptable levels of reliability and validity. They are understood and easily usable by diverse Spanish-speaking populations. CONCLUSION: The availability of these translated outcome measures should enable investigators to include monolingual Spanish-speakers into their studies, and should facilitate study of cross-cultural differences with respect to these specific outcomes.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This article summarizes the outcome of health education efforts among populations that, due to their cultural heritage, have received limited services. The literature reviewed shows that programs found to be effective in one population cannot be assumed to be equally effective with a different population. An argument is made for the design of culturally appropriate and group-specific interventions which would properly serve the various underserved populations. Research needs to be conducted to identify appropriate approaches and intervention strategies, as well as the group-specific sociopsychological characteristics (attitudes, norms, values, expectancies) that are related to health-damaging and protective behaviors.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Arthritis is a chronic disease that is estimated to affect 14.5% of the American population and is the leading cause of functional dependency in the activities of daily living (ADLs) and the instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) in all persons over the age of 65 years. Clinical studies have shown that medical care, including the use of medications, can offer a 20-50% improvement in reported arthritis symptoms. Data from patient education studies suggest that a further improvement of 15-30% is attainable through patient education interventions. This literature review has been completed to update the reviews of patient education studies by Lorig and Riggs in 1983 and Lorig, Konkol, and Gonzalez in 1987. More specifically, the objectives of this review are: (1) to provide a summary of arthritis patient education studies published or presented since 1987; (2) to summarize the findings concerning the effectiveness of arthritis patient education studies which attempt to change knowledge, behavior, psychosocial status, and health status; (3) to discuss shifting trends in observed outcomes of arthritis patient education studies; and (4) to discuss implications for the future.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate when a difference in disability symptoms is sufficiently large to be important to individual patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of two groups: derivation set (n = 46) and validation set (n = 57). SETTING: The Arthritis Foundation, Northern California Chapters. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of patients with arthritis who live in the community. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We applied the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire to assess the functional status of individuals. Participants then conducted one-on-one conversations with each other and rated whether their disability was "much better" "somewhat better," "about the same," "somewhat worse," or "much worse" relative to each person they met. For every conversation we calculated the difference between the two participants' health assessment questionnaire scores and linked the difference to the subjective comparison ratings of each individual in the pair. RESULTS: Health assessment questionnaire score differences were significantly correlated with subjective comparison ratings (correlation coefficient, .41; 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.50). We estimated that health assessment questionnaire scores needed to differ by about 0.19 units for average respondents to stop rating themselves as "about the same" and start rating themselves as "somewhat better" (95% confidence interval, 0.10 to 0.28). Analysis of a second group of patients revealed a similar threshold (mean, 0.23 units; 95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.23). In both groups, health assessment questionnaire score differences were imperfect predictors of individual ratings and the threshold for less disabled participants tended to be lower than the threshold for more disabled participants. CONCLUSIONS: Some statistically significant differences in functional status scores may be so small that they represent trivial degrees of symptom relief. An awareness of the smallest difference in symptom scores that is important to patients can provide a rough guide to help clinicians interpret the medical literature.