Pfingsten, Michael

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","42"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","8"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","7"],["dc.contributor.author","Chenot, Jean-François"],["dc.contributor.author","Becker, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Leonhardt, Corinna"],["dc.contributor.author","Keller, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert"],["dc.contributor.author","Baum, Erika"],["dc.contributor.author","Pfingsten, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Hildebrandt, Jan"],["dc.contributor.author","Basler, Heinz-Dieter"],["dc.contributor.author","Kochen, Michael M."],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-10T08:13:03Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-10T08:13:03Z"],["dc.date.issued","2007"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Although back pain is considered one of the most frequent reasons why patients seek complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies little is known on the extent patients are actually using CAM for back pain. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a longitudinal prospective cohort study embedded in a RCT. General practitioners (GPs) recruited consecutively adult patients presenting with LBP. Data on physical function, on subjective mood, and on utilization of health services was collected at the first consultation and at follow-up telephone interviews for a period of twelve months. Results: A total of 691 (51%) respectively 928 (69%) out of 1,342 patients received one form of CAM depending on the definition. Local heat, massage, and spinal manipulation were the forms of CAM most commonly offered. Using CAM was associated with specialist care, chronic LBP and treatment in a rehabilitation facility. Receiving spinal manipulation, acupuncture or TENS was associated with consulting a GP providing these services. Apart from chronicity disease related factors like functional capacity or pain only showed weak or no association with receiving CAM. Conclusion: The frequent use of CAM for LBP demonstrates that CAM is popular in patients and doctors alike. The observed association with a treatment in a rehabilitation facility or with specialist consultations rather reflects professional preferences of the physicians than a clear medical indication. The observed dependence on providers and provider related services, as well as a significant proportion receiving CAM that did not meet the so far established selection criteria suggests some arbitrary use of CAM."],["dc.identifier.fs","189767"],["dc.identifier.ppn","559542232"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/4382"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/61108"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.issn","1472-6882"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Allgemeinmedizin"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Universitätsmedizin Göttingen"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.subject.ddc","615"],["dc.title","Use of complementary alternative medicine for low back pain consulting in general practice: a cohort study"],["dc.title.alternative","Research article"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","12"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Psycho-social medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","6"],["dc.contributor.author","Leonhardt, Corinna"],["dc.contributor.author","Lehr, Dirk"],["dc.contributor.author","Chenot, Jean-François"],["dc.contributor.author","Keller, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Luckmann, Judith"],["dc.contributor.author","Basler, Heinz-Dieter"],["dc.contributor.author","Baum, Erika"],["dc.contributor.author","Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert"],["dc.contributor.author","Pfingsten, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Hildebrandt, Jan"],["dc.contributor.author","Kochen, Michael M."],["dc.contributor.author","Becker, Annette"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:52:39Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:52:39Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Objective: The assumption that low back pain (LBP) patients suffer from \"disuse\" as a consequence of high fear-avoidance beliefs is currently under debate. A secondary analysis served to investigate whether fear-avoidance beliefs are associated cross-sectionally and longitudinally with the physical activity level (PAL) in LBP patients. Methods: A total of 787 individuals (57% acute and 43% chronic LBP) were followed up over a period of one year with measurements of fear-avoidance beliefs and physical activity level. Fear-avoidance beliefs concerning physical activity were measured by the physical-activity subscale of the FABQ (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), the physical activity level was assessed in weighted metabolic equivalents (MET) hours/week with a German self-report questionnaire. Data were investigated by structural equation modelling in a cross-lagged panel design for the whole sample and separately for acute and chronic LBP.Results: The acute and chronic sub sample increased their total physical activity level significantly after one year. The structural equation modelling results did not support the disuse-aspect inherent in the fear-avoidance belief model. Cross-lagged path coefficients were low (.04 and .05 respectively) and, therefore, did not allow to predict final physical activity by initial fear-avoidance beliefs or vice versa. Discussion: Consequently, due to missing links between fear-avoidance beliefs and physical activity in a longitudinal design, the assumptions of the fear-avoidance belief model have to be questioned. These findings are in line with other investigations published recently. Most probably, \"fear-avoidance belief\" represents a cognitive scheme that does not limit activity per se, but only is directed to the avoidance of specific movements."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3205/psm000057"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19742047"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/5814"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/60248"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.issn","1860-5214"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Allgemeinmedizin"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","Are fear-avoidance beliefs in low back pain patients a risk factor for low physical activity or vice versa? A cross-lagged panel analysis."],["dc.title.alternative","Sind Angst-Vermeidungsüberzeugungen bei Kreuzschmerzpatienten ein Risikofaktor für geringe körperliche Aktivität oder vice versa? Eine Crosslagged-panel-Analyse"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","7"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Implementation Science"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","3"],["dc.contributor.author","Chenot, Jean-Francois"],["dc.contributor.author","Scherer, Martin"],["dc.contributor.author","Becker, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert"],["dc.contributor.author","Baum, Erika"],["dc.contributor.author","Leonhardt, Corinna"],["dc.contributor.author","Keller, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Pfingsten, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Hildebrandt, Jan"],["dc.contributor.author","Basler, Heinz-Dieter"],["dc.contributor.author","Kochen, Michael M."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T11:18:20Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T11:18:20Z"],["dc.date.issued","2008"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Implementation of guidelines in clinical practice is difficult. In 2003, the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM) released an evidence-based guideline for the management of low back pain (LBP) in primary care. The objective of this study is to explore the acceptance of guideline content and perceived barriers to implementation. Methods: Seventy-two general practitioners (GPs) participating in quality circles within the framework of an educational intervention study for guideline implementation evaluated the LBP-guideline and its practicability with a standardised questionnaire. In addition, statements of group discussions were recorded using the metaplan technique and were incorporated in the discussion. Results: Most GPs agree with the guideline content but believe that guideline stipulations are not congruent with patient wishes. Non-adherence to the guideline and contradictory information for patients by other professionals (e. g., GPs, orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists) are important barriers to guideline adherence. Almost half of the GPs have no access to recommended multimodal pain programs for patients with chronic LBP. Conclusion: Promoting adherence to the LBP guideline requires more than enhancing knowledge about evidence-based management of LBP. Public education and an interdisciplinary consensus are important requirements for successful guideline implementation into daily practice. Guideline recommendations need to be adapted to the infrastructure of the health care system. Trial registration: BMBF Grant Nr. 01EM0113. FORIS (database for research projects in social science) Reg #: 20040116 [25]."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1748-5908-3-7"],["dc.identifier.isi","000265149300001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","18257923"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/12520"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/55013"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.relation.issn","1748-5908"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Allgemeinmedizin"],["dc.rights","CC BY 2.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0"],["dc.title","Acceptance and perceived barriers of implementing a guideline for managing low back in general practice"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","149"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","BMC Health Services Research"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","6"],["dc.contributor.author","Chenot, Jean-Francois"],["dc.contributor.author","Becker, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Leonhardt, Corinna"],["dc.contributor.author","Keller, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert"],["dc.contributor.author","Baum, Erika"],["dc.contributor.author","Pfingsten, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Hildebrandt, Jan"],["dc.contributor.author","Kochen, Michael M."],["dc.contributor.author","Basler, Heinz-Dieter"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T08:57:17Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T08:57:17Z"],["dc.date.issued","2006"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Acupuncture is a frequently used but controversial adjunct to the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP). Acupuncture is now considered to be effective for chronic LBP and health care systems are pressured to make a decision whether or not acupuncture should be covered. It has been suggested that providing such services might reduce the use of other health care services. Therefore, we explored factors associated with acupuncture treatment for LBP and the relation of acupuncture with other health care services. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a longitudinal prospective cohort study. General practitioners (GPs) recruited consecutive adult patients with LBP. Data on physical function, subjective mood and utilization of health care services was collected at the first consultation and at follow-up telephone interviews for a period of twelve months. Results: A total of 179 (13%) out of 1,345 patients received acupuncture treatment. The majority of those (59%) had chronic LBP. Women and elderly patients were more likely to be given acupuncture. Additional determinants of acupuncture therapy were low functional capacity and chronicity of pain. Chronic ( vs. acute) back pain OR 1.6 ( CL 1.4-2.9) was the only significant disease-related factor associated with the treatment. The strongest predictors for receiving acupuncture were consultation with a GP who offers acupuncture OR 3.5 ( CL 2.9 - 4.1) and consultation with a specialist OR 2.1 ( CL 1.9 - 2.3). After adjustment for patient characteristics, acupuncture remained associated with higher consultation rates and an increased use of other health care services like physiotherapy. Conclusion: Receiving acupuncture for LBP depends mostly on the availability of the treatment. It is associated with increased use of other health services even after adjustment for patient characteristics. In our study, we found that receiving acupuncture does not offset the use of other health care resources. A significant proportion of patients who received did not meet the so far only known selection criterion (chonicity). Acupuncture therapy might be a reflection of helplessness in both patients and health care providers."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/1472-6963-6-149"],["dc.identifier.isi","000242410100001"],["dc.identifier.pmid","17112374"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?goescholar/1369"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/23357"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.relation.issn","1472-6963"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Institut für Allgemeinmedizin"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Determinants for receiving acupuncture for LBP and associated treatments: a prospective cohort study"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","473"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Spine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","480"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","33"],["dc.contributor.author","Becker, Annette"],["dc.contributor.author","Leonhardt, Corinna"],["dc.contributor.author","Kochen, Michael M."],["dc.contributor.author","Keller, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Wegscheider, Karl"],["dc.contributor.author","Baum, Erika"],["dc.contributor.author","Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert"],["dc.contributor.author","Pfingsten, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Hildebrandt, Jan"],["dc.contributor.author","Basler, Heinz-Dieter"],["dc.contributor.author","Chenot, Jean F."],["dc.date.accessioned","2011-04-20T06:47:37Z"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-27T13:22:41Z"],["dc.date.available","2011-04-20T06:47:37Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-27T13:22:41Z"],["dc.date.issued","2008"],["dc.description.abstract","Study design: Cluster randomized controlled trial Objective: To improve quality of care for patients with low back pain (LBP) a multifaceted general practitioner education alone and in combination with motivational counseling by practice nurses has been implemented in German general practices. We studied effects on functional capacity (main outcome), days in pain, physical activity, quality of life or days of sick leave (secondary outcomes) compared to no intervention. Summary of Background data: International research has lead to the development of the German LBP guideline for general practitioners. However, there is still doubt about the most effective implementation strategy. Although effects on process of care have been observed frequently, changes in patient outcomes are rarely seen. Methods: We recruited 1378 patients with LBP in 118 general practices which were randomized to one of three study arms: a multifaceted guideline implementation (GI), GI plus training of practice nurses in motivational counseling (MC) and the postal dissemination of the guideline (controls, C). Data were collected (questionnaires and patient interviews) at baseline and after six and 12 months. Multilevel mixed effects modeling was used to adjust for clustering of data and potential confounders. Results: After 6 months, functional capacity was higher in the intervention groups with a cluster adjusted mean difference of 3.650 between the MC group and controls (95%CI =0.320 – 6.979, p=0.032) and 2.652 between the GI group and controls (95%CI = -0.704 – 6.007, p=0.120). Intervention effects were more pronounced regarding days in pain per year with an average reduction of 16 (GI) to 17 days (MC) after 6 months (12 and 9 days after 12 months) compared to controls. Two guideline implementation strategies / RCT 3 Conclusion: Active implementation of the German LBP guideline results in better outcomes during six months follow-up than its postal dissemination. Training of practice nurses in motivational counseling had no additional benefit."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181657e0d"],["dc.identifier.isi","000253740300004"],["dc.identifier.pmid","18317189"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/6196"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/92117"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Migrated from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.relation.issn","0362-2436"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Universitätsmedizin Göttingen"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.subject.ddc","610"],["dc.title","Effects of Two Guideline Implementation Strategies on Patient Outcomes in Primary Care"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","submitted_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]