Auriculotherapy for reducing chronic spinal pain in health workers: a clinical trial

Morais, Bruna Xavier; Munhoz, Oclaris Lopes; Moreira, Carlos Heitor Cunha; Kurebayashi, Leonice Fumiko Sato; Lopes, Luis Felipe Dias; Magnago, Tânia Solange Bosi de Souza

doi:10.1590/1518-8345.6641.3954

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem 31 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.6641.3954 copy

Auriculotherapy for reducing chronic spinal pain in health workers: a clinical trial^* * Paper extracted from doctoral dissertation “Auriculotherapy effectiveness to reduce chronic pain in the spinal column in healthcare workers: randomized clinical trial”, presented to Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) - Finance Code 001, Brazil.

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Objective:

to evaluate the effectiveness of auriculotherapy in reducing chronic musculoskeletal pain in the spine of health workers.

Method:

a randomized, triple-blind clinical trial conducted with health workers diagnosed with chronic spinal pain. Eight sessions of auriculotherapy with seeds were applied, two per week. The outcomes were measured with the Numerical Pain Scale, Brief Pain Inventory, Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and SF-36 instruments, in the 1^st, 4^th and 8^th session, and in the 15-day follow-up period. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed.

Results:

34 workers took part in the Intervention Group and 33 in the Control Group, and both presented reduced pain intensity (p>0.05). In the follow-up period, there was a greater reduction in the Intervention Group (3.32 ± 0.42), when compared to the Control Group (5.00 ± 0.43) (p=0.007). In quality of life, there was improved vitality (p=0.012) and limitation due to emotional aspects (p=0.025). The relationship between auriculotherapy, physical disability and pain interference did not differ between the groups (p>0.05). Medication use in the follow-up period remained unchanged in the Control Group (77.8%) when compared to the Intervention Group (22.2%) (p=0.013).

Conclusion:

auriculotherapy exerted the same effect between the groups on pain intensity, lasting longer in the follow-up period. There was an improvement in quality of life and a reduction in medication use. REBEC: RBR-3jvmdn.

Descriptors:
Musculoskeletal Pain; Chronic Pain; Auriculotherapy; Complementary Therapies; Clinical Trial; Quality of Life

Highlights:

(1) Auricular stimulation in true and false points (sham) exerts the same effect.

(2) There is greater durability of pain reduction in the follow-up period with the use of true points.

(3) Auriculotherapy enables the promotion of quality of life.

(4) Auriculotherapy reduced medication use in the workers under study.

Variables	Intervention Group	Control Group	p-value
Gender N (%)
Female	30 (48.4)	32 (51.6)	0.356^*
Male	4 (80)	1 (20)
Age Mean (±SD ^† )	48.82 ± 9.22	48.42 ± 9.17	0.868^‡
Smoking habit N (%)
Ever smoked but stopped	8 (61.5)	5 (38.5)	0.371^*
Never smoked	24 (51.1)	23 (48.9)
Yes	2 (28.6)	5 (71.4)
Medication use N (%)
No	7 (53.8)	6 (42.2)	1.000^*
Yes	27 (50)	27 (50)
Weekly hour load Mean (±SD ^† )	35.59 ± 5.80	35.58 ± 5.24	0.920^‡
Time working in the profession Mean (±SD ^† )	21.47 ± 9.47	21.03 ± 9.49	0.977^‡
Time working in the institution Mean (±SD ^† )	14.15 ± 9.97	13.50 ± 9.20	0.975^‡
Pain intensity Median (Minimum-Maximum)	7.00 (4-8)	7.00 (4-10)	0.806^§

		Assessments	Intervention Group	Control Group
		Assessments	Mean (SE^*)	Mean (SE^*)
Numerical Pain Scale	Pain intensity	1^st session (n=67)	5.94 (0.26)^Aa†	5.88 (0.26)^Aa†
		4^th session (n=64)	3.65 (0.41)^Ab†	4.71 (0.43)^Ab†
		8^th session (n=58)	3.11 (0.43)^Ab†	3.80 (0.44)^Ac†
		Follow-up (n=56)	3.32 (0.42)^Ab†	5.00 (0.43)^Bab†
Brief Pain Inventory	Pain intensity	1^st session (n=67)	5.57 (0.24)^Aa†	5.45 (0.25)^Aa†
		4^th session (n=64)	3.82 (0.36)^Ab†	4.51 (0.37)^Ab†
		8^th session (n=58)	3.43 (0.38)^Ab†	3.70 (0.38)^Ac†
		Follow-up (n=56)	3.66 (0.39)^Ab†	4.18 (0.38)^Ac†
	Pain interference	1^st session (n=67)	4.89 (0.36)^Aa†	5.05 (0.37)^Aa†
		4^th session (n=64)	2.84 (0.40)^Ab†	3.24 (0.41)^Ab†
		8^th session (n=58)	2.39 (0.40)^Ab†	2.31 (0.40)^Ac†
		Follow-up (n=56)	2.19 (0.40)^Ab†	2.88 (0.39)^Ac†
Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire	Physical disability	1^st session (n=67)	12.12 (0.86)^Aa†	11.73 (0.87)^Aa†
		4^th session (n=64)	9.00 (1.00)^Ab†	9.14 (1.02)^Abc†
		8^th session (n=58)	7.47 (1.07)^Ab†	7.77 (1.08)^Ac†
		Follow-up (n=56)	8.18 (1.02)^Ab†	9.06 (1.03)^Ab†

	Assessments	Intervention Group	Control Group
	Assessments	Mean (SE^*)	Mean (SE^*)
Functional capacity	1^st session (n=67)	50.06 (3.68)^Ab†	50.30 (3.70)^Ab†
	4^th session (n=64)	54.40 (3.83)^Aab†	55.14 (3.93)^Aab†
	8^th session (n=58)	60.12 (4.01)^Aa†	58.81 (4.04)^Aa†
	Follow-up (n=56)	61.38 (4.04)^Aa†	59.06 (4.07)^Aa†
Limitation due to physical aspects	1^st session (n=67)	39.72 (6.45)^Ac†	33.33 (6.49)^Ac†
	4^th session (n=64)	55.03 (5.53)^Ab†	52.25 (5.68)^Ab†
	8^th session (n=58)	62.35 (7.15)^Ab†	57.68 (7.22)^Aab†
	Follow-up (n=56)	75.13 (5.78)^Aa†	66.94 (5.83)^Aa†
Pain	1^st session (n=67)	40.36 (2.18)^Ab†	35.12 (2.18)^Ab†
	4^th session (n=64)	50.10 (2.39)^Aa†	44.65 (2.49)^Aa†
	8^th session (n=58)	52.99 (3.09)^Aa†	49.77 (3.12)^Aa†
	Follow-up (n=56)	52.39 (2.87)^Aa†	46.97 (2.88)^Aa†
Vitality	1^st session (n=67)	56.32 (2.66)^Ab†	48.03 (2.70)^Bb†
	4^th session (n=64)	63.00 (2.99)^Aa†	49.78 (3.07)^Bb†
	8^th session (n=58)	63.21 (3.26)^Aa†	55.22 (3.30)^Aa†
	Follow-up (n=56)	64.21 (3.25)^Aa†	55.64 (3.27)^Aa†
Social aspects	1^st session (n=67)	57.88 (3.67)^Ab†	52.34 (3.75)^Ac†
	4^th session (n=64)	69.23 (3.25)^Aa†	60.04 (3.38)^Ab†
	8^th session (n=58)	70.64 (3.66)^Aa†	69.43 (3.72)^Aa†
	Follow-up (n=56)	75.31 (4.00)^Aa†	66.93 (4.00)^Aab†
Limitation due to emotional aspects	1^st session (n=67)	47.73 (6.99)^Ab†	57.58 (7.01)^Aa†
	4^th session (n=64)	78.71 (5.63)^Aa†	60.13 (5.80)^Ba†
	8^th session (n=58)	72.85 (7.11)^Aa†	69.76 (7.15)^Aa†
	Follow-up (n=56)	75.02 (6.41)^Aa†	69.97 (6.45)^Aa†
Mental health	1^st session (n=67)	66.71 (3.06)^Ab†	58.18 (3.11)^Ab†
	4^th session (n=64)	70.26 (2.82)^Aab†	64.54 (2.92)^Aa†
	8^th session (n=58)	72.51 (3.11)^Aa†	66.48 (3.15)^Aa†
	Follow-up (n=56)	73.88 (3.28)^Aa†	67.57 (3.29)^Aa†

Medication use	Intervention Group	Control Group
Medication use	N (%)	N (%)
Reduced the dosage	10 (71.4)^A*	4 (28.6)^A*
Maintained the dosage	4 (22.2)^A*	14 (77.8)^B*
Increased the dosage	-	1 (100)
No medication use	14 (63.6)^A*	8 (36.4)^A*

Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto / Universidade de São Paulo Av. Bandeirantes, 3900, 14040-902 Ribeirão Preto SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 (16) 3315-3451 / 3315-4407 - Ribeirão Preto - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rlae@eerp.usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author:
Tânia Solange Bosi de Souza Magnago E-mail: magnago.tania@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5308-1604