Journals / Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 61 - Sayı: 1

Burden of chronic low back pain in the Turkish population

Kronik bel ağrısının Türk toplumuna maliyeti

Pages
58–64
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Indirect cost was higher in women.Conclusion: The indirect costs for CLBP were signifcantly higher thanthe direct costs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a great economic burdento the society mainly in terms of the large number of the lost work daysand disability, and it appears to be growing.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to analyze the health careresource use, work and productivity loss, and health-related economicsof CLBP in Turkey.Material and Methods: The study was designed as a multi-centeredcross-sectional survey of patients in physical therapy and rehabilitationclinics from eight different regions of Turkey and 662 patients with CLBPover 18 years of age were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Indirect cost was higher in women.Conclusion: The indirect costs for CLBP were signifcantly higher thanthe direct costs.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a great economic burdento the society mainly in terms of the large number of the lost work daysand disability, and it appears to be growing. The economic burden ofLBP in Turkey is not known. This study aims to analyze the health careresource use, work and productivity loss, and health-related economicsof CLBP in Turkey.Material and Methods: The study was designed as a multi-centeredcross-sectional survey of patients in physical therapy and rehabilitationclinics from eight different regions of Turkey and 662 patients with CLBPover 18 years of age were included. Data on patient sociodemographics,disease-related healthcare resource use during the previous 6 months,inability to work during the last 3 months, Roland Morris Disability Indexfor the functional status, and psychological health with Beck DepressionScale were collected. Direct costs included medical visits, investigations,medications, hospitalizations, orthopedic aids, and physical therapy.İndirect costs were evaluated mostly with productivity loss.Results: The total annual direct costs for CLBP per patient wereestimated at 1080 TL. The indirect costs were estimated at 5511 TL perpatient. Direct cost was correlated with disease severity, duration, andage. Indirect cost was higher in women.Conclusion: The indirect costs for CLBP were signifcantly higher thanthe direct costs.

Özet

Amaç: Kronik bel ağrısının özellikle kayıp iş günleri ve dizabilite anlamındatoplum üzerine maliyeti çok büyüktür ve giderek arttığı görülmektedir. Türkiyedekronik bel ağrısının maliyeti tam olarak bilinmemektedir. Bu çalışmada kronik belağrılı hastalarda sağlık kaynaklarının kullanımı, iş gücü-üretim kaybı ve hastalığıntoplam ekonomik yükünün araştırılması planlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma, Türkiyenin 8 ayrı bölgesindeki fziksel tıpve rehabilitasyon kliniklerine başvuran hastaların çok merkezli kesitselaraştırılması olarak planlanmıştır. Çalışmaya kronik bel ağrılı 18 yaş üstü662 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Olguların sosyo-demografk verileri, son 6ay içindeki sağlık kaynaklarının kullanımı, son 3 ay içindeki çalışabilmedurumlarını içeren bir anket, fonksiyonel durumu için Roland-MorrisDisabilite anketi, depresyon durumu için de Beck Depresyon Ölçeğidolduruldu. Kişinin kendisi, işvereni ve sağlık sistemi tarafından yapılanharcamalar hesaplandı. Doğrudan harcamaları poliklinik viziti, tanısaltestler, medikal tedaviler, hastane bakımı, ortopedik yardımcı cihazlar,fzik tedaviler; dolaylı harcamaları ise üretim gücündeki azalma, raporlugünler, iş gücü kaybı ile ilgili veriler oluşturdu.Bulgular: Bel ağrısı için hasta başı yıllık doğrudan harcama 1080 TL,dolaylı harcama ise 5511 TL idi. Doğrudan maliyet hastalık şiddeti,süresi ve yaş ile korele bulundu. Dolaylı maliyet kadınlarda yüksekti.Sonuç: Özellikle iş günü ve iş gücü kaybına bağlı dolaylı harcamalardoğrudan harcamalardan çok daha fazla maliyetlidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YUMUŞAKHUYLU, Y., ÇAPACI, K., KİRAZLI, Y., KETENCİ, A., HALİLOĞLU, S., ERİMAN, E., TORAMAN, N. F., İÇAĞASIOĞLU, A., KURU, Ö., KAYMAK, G. K. (2022). Burden of chronic low back pain in the Turkish population. Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, Cilt: 61 - Sayı: 1, 58–64. https://ajindex.com/articles/628698

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Woolf AD, Pfleger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 2003;81:646-56
  2. Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J 2008;8:8-20. [CrossRef] 3. Kim N, Yang B, Lee T, Kwon S. An economic analysis of usual care and acupuncture collaborative treatment on chronic low back pain: a Markov model decision analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med 2010;10:74. [CrossRef] 4. Available from: http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/low-back- pain-early-management 5. Gilgil E, Kaçar C, Bütün B, Tuncer T, Urhan S, Yildirim C, et al. Prevalence of low back pain in a developing urban setting. Spine 2005;30:1093-8. [CrossRef] 6. Oksuz E. Prevalence, risk factors, and preference-based health states of low back pain in a Turkish population. Spine 2006;31:968-72. [CrossRef] 7. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 1999;354:581-5. [CrossRef] 8. Ekman M, Jönhagen S, Hunsche E, Jönsson L. Burden of illness of chronic low back pain in Sweden: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in primary care setting. Spine 2005;30:1777-85. [CrossRef] 9. Hodgson TA, Meiners MR. Cost-of-illness methodology: a guide to current practices and procedures. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc 1982;60:429-62. [CrossRef] 10. Maniadakis N, Gray A. The economic burden of back pain in the UK. Pain 2000;84:95-103. [CrossRef] 11. Walker BF, Muller R, Grant WD. Low back pain in Australian adults: the economic burden. Asia Pac J Public Health 2003;15:79-87. [CrossRef] 12. Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J 2008;8:8-20. [CrossRef] 13. Luce BR, Manning WG. Estimating cost in cost effectiveness analy- sis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel L, Weistein MC, editors. Cost effec- tiveness in health and medicine. Newyork Oxford University Pres; 1996. p.176-213
  3. Available from: www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/tr/mevzuat/yururluk- teki_mevzuat/tebligler/ 15. Ommaty R. Vital ilaç rehberi. İstanbul: Pelikan Tıp ve Teknik Kitapçılık; 2013
  4. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 2000;25:3115-24. [CrossRef] 17. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, Niyazoglu H. Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine 2001;26:2738-43. [Cros