Introduction: Illness Perceptions (IPs) may play a role in the management of persistent low back pain. The mediation and/or moderation effect of IPs on primary outcomes in physiotherapy treatment is unknown. Methods: A multiple single-case experimental design, using a matched care physiotherapy intervention, with three phases (phases A-B-A’) was used including a 3 month follow up (phase A’). Primary outcomes: pain intensity, physical functioning and pain interference in daily life. Analyzes: linear mixed models, adjusted for fear of movement, catastrophizing, avoidance, sombreness and sleep. Results: Nine patients were included by six different primary care physiotherapists. Repeated measures on 196 data points showed that IPs Consequences, Personal control, Identity, Concern and Emotional response had a mediation effect on all three primary outcomes. The IP Personal control acted as a moderator for all primary outcomes, with clinically relevant improvements at 3 month follow up. Conclusion: Our study might indicate that some IPs have a mediating or a moderating effect on the outcome of a matched care physiotherapy treatment. Assessing Personal control at baseline, as a relevant moderator for the outcome prognosis of successful physiotherapy management of persistent low back pain, should be further eplored.
DOCUMENT
Introduction Negative pain-related cognitions are associated with persistence of low-back pain (LBP), but the mechanism underlying this association is not well understood. We propose that negative pain-related cognitions determine how threatening a motor task will be perceived, which in turn will affect how lumbar movements are performed, possibly with negative long-term effects on pain. Objective To assess the effect of postural threat on lumbar movement patterns in people with and without LBP, and to investigate whether this effect is associated with task-specific pain-related cognitions. Methods 30 back-healthy participants and 30 participants with LBP performed consecutive two trials of a seated repetitive reaching movement (45 times). During the first trial participants were threatened with mechanical perturbations, during the second trial participants were informed that the trial would be unperturbed. Movement patterns were characterized by temporal variability (CyclSD), local dynamic stability (LDE) and spatial variability (meanSD) of the relative lumbar Euler angles. Pain-related cognition was assessed with the task-specific ‘Expected Back Strain’-scale (EBS). A three-way mixed Manova was used to assess the effect of Threat, Group (LBP vs control) and EBS (above vs below median) on lumbar movement patterns. Results We found a main effect of threat on lumbar movement patterns. In the threat-condition, participants showed increased variability (MeanSDflexion-extension, p<0.000, η2 = 0.26; CyclSD, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.14) and decreased stability (LDE, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.14), indicating large effects of postural threat. Conclusion Postural threat increased variability and decreased stability of lumbar movements, regardless of group or EBS. These results suggest that perceived postural threat may underlie changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP. Since LBP is likely to impose such a threat, this could be a driver of changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP, as also supported by the higher spatial variability in the group with LBP and higher EBS in the reference condition.
LINK
Background: Self-management support is considered an important component in the physiotherapeutic treatment of people with chronic low back pain. The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise Low Back Pain is an example of a self-management intervention. More insight may contribute to improving blended interventions to stimulate self-management after treatment and thus hopefully prevent chronicity and/or relapses in patients with chronic low back pain. Objectives: The aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the self-management behaviour after a physiotherapist guided blended self-management intervention in people with chronic low back pain. Design: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews nested within a randomized controlled trial on the (cost-)effectiveness of e-Exercise Low Back Pain was conducted. Method: Thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcriptions. A hybrid process of both deductive and inductive approaches was used. Results: After 12 interviews, data saturation was reached. Analysis of the data yielded six themes related to self-management behaviour: illness beliefs, coping, cognitions, social support and resource utilization, physiotherapeutic involvement and motivation. Conclusions: In our study the majority of the participants seemed to show adequate self-management behaviour when experiencing low back pain. Most participants first try to gain control over their low back pain themselves when experiencing a relapse before contacting the physiotherapist. Participants struggle in continuing health behaviour in pain free periods between relapses of low back pain. Physiotherapists are recommended to encourage long-term behaviour change. Additionally, better facilitation by the physiotherapist or additional functionalities in the app to stimulate social support might have a useful contribution.
LINK
QUESTION: Do negative expectations in patients after the onset of acute low back pain increase the odds of absence from usual work due to progression to chronic low back pain?DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective inception cohort studies.PARTICIPANTS: Adults with acute or subacute non-specific low back pain.OUTCOME MEASURE: Absence from usual work at a given time point greater than 12 weeks after the onset of pain due to ongoing pain.RESULTS: Ten studies involving 4683 participants were included in the review. Participants with acute or subacute pain and negative expectations about their recovery had significantly greater odds of being absent from usual work at a given time point more than 12 weeks after the onset of pain: OR 2.17 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.91). The exclusion of five studies with the greatest risk of bias showed that the result was similar when more rigorous quality criteria were applied: OR 2.52 (95% CI 1.47 to 4.31).CONCLUSION: The odds that adults with acute or subacute non-specific low back pain and negative recovery expectations will remain absent from work due to progression to chronic low back pain are two times greater than for those with more positive expectations. These results were consistent across the included studies despite variations in the risk of bias.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) has been translated into different languages, and several studies on its measurement properties have been done. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to critically appraise and compare the measurement properties, when possible, of all language versions of the QBPDS by systematically reviewing the methodological quality and results of the available studies. METHOD: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were searched for articles with the key words "Quebec," "back," "pain," and "disability" in combination with a methodological search filter for finding studies on measurement properties concerning the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of the QBPDS in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Assessment of the methodological quality was carried out by the reviewers using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for both the original language version of the QBPDS in English and French and all translated versions. The results of the measurement properties were rated based on criteria proposed by Terwee et al. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in identification of 1,436 publications, and 27 articles were included in the systematic review. There was limited-to-moderate evidence of good reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the QBPDS for the different language versions, but for no language version was evidence available for all measurement properties. CONCLUSION: For research and clinical practice, caution is advised when using the QBPDS to measure disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Strong evidence is lacking on all measurement properties for each language version of the QBPDS.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVE:To develop a blended physiotherapeutic intervention for patients with non-specific low back pain (e-Exercise LBP) and evaluate its proof of concept.DESIGN:Focus groups with patients, physiotherapists, and eHealth and LBP experts were conducted to investigate values according to the development of e-Exercise LBP. Proof of concept was evaluated in a multicentre study.SETTING:Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices (n=21 therapists).PARTICIPANTS:Adults with non-specific LBP (n=41).INTERVENTION:e-Exercise LBP was developed based on clinical LBP guidelines and the focus groups, using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap. Face-to-face physiotherapy sessions were integrated with a web application consisting of 12 information lessons, video-supported exercises and a physical activity module with the option to gradually increase individuals' level of physical activity. The intervention could be tailored to patients' risk of persistent disabling LBP, according to the STarT Back Screening Tool.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Functional disability, pain, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and fear-avoidance beliefs, measured at baseline and 12 weeks.RESULTS:After 12 weeks, improvements were found in functional disability [Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: mean difference (MD) -12.2/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3 to 16.1], pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale: MD -2.8/10; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), subjective physical activity (Short Questionnaire to Assess Health Enhancing Physical Activity: MD 11.5minutes/day; 95% CI -47.8 to 24.8) and objective sedentary behaviour (ActiGraph: MD -23.0minutes/day; 95% CI -8.9 to 55.0). Small improvements were found in objective physical activity and fear-avoidance beliefs. The option to gradually increase physical activity was activated for six patients (15%). On average, patients received seven face-to-face sessions alongside the web application.CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study provide the first indication of the effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP, particularly for disability and pain among patients with LBP. Future studies will focus on end-user experiences and (cost-) effectiveness.KEYWORDS:Low back pain; Physiotherapy; Telemedicine; e-Health
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient education, advice on returning to normal activities and (home-based) exercise therapy are established treatment options for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on physical functioning and prevention of recurrent events largely depends on patient self-management, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour. Therefore we have developed e-Exercise LBP, a blended intervention in which a smartphone application is integrated within face-to-face care. E-Exercise LBP aims to improve patient self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations and consequently improve the effectiveness of physiotherapy on patients’ physical functioning. The aim of this study is to investigate the short- (3 months) and long-term (12 and 24 months) effectiveness on physical functioning and cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP in comparison to usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with LBP. Methods: This paper presents the protocol of a prospective, multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 208 patients with LBP pain were treated with either e-Exercise LBP or usual care physiotherapy. E-Exercise LBP is stratified based on the risk for developing persistent LBP. Physiotherapists are able to monitor and evaluate treatment progress between face-to-face sessions using patient input from the smartphone application in order to optimize physiotherapy care. The smartphone application contains video-supported self-management information, video-supported exercises and a goal-oriented physical activity module. The primary outcome is physical functioning at 12-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour, self-efficacy, patient activation and health-related quality of life. All measurements will be performed at baseline, 3, 12 and 24months after inclusion. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and the healthcare perspective and will assess cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP compared to usual physiotherapy at 12 and 24months. Discussion: A multi-phase development and implementation process using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap for the participatory development of eHealth was used for development and evaluation. The findings will provide evidence on the effectiveness of blended care for patients with LBP and help to enhance future implementation of blended physiotherapy.
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning. Objective: This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. Methods: The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes. Conclusions: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.
MULTIFILE
Background: Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning. Objective: This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. Methods The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes. Conclusions: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.
LINK
Objective: To develop a blended physiotherapeutic intervention for patients with non-specific low back pain (e-Exercise LBP) and evaluate its proof of concept. Design: Focus groups with patients, physiotherapists, and eHealth and LBP experts were conducted to investigate values according to the development of e-Exercise LBP. Proof of concept was evaluated in a multicentre study. Setting: Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices (n=21 therapists). Participants: Adults with non-specific LBP (n=41). Intervention: e-Exercise LBP was developed based on clinical LBP guidelines and the focus groups, using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap. Face-to-face physiotherapy sessions were integrated with a web application consisting of 12 information lessons, video-supported exercises and a physical activity module with the option to gradually increase individuals' level of physical activity. The intervention could be tailored to patients' risk of persistent disabling LBP, according to the STarT Back Screening Tool. Main outcome measures: Functional disability, pain, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and fear-avoidance beliefs, measured at baseline and 12 weeks. Results: After 12 weeks, improvements were found in functional disability [Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: mean difference (MD) -12.2/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3 to 16.1], pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale: MD -2.8/10; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), subjective physical activity (Short Questionnaire to Assess Health Enhancing Physical Activity: MD 11.5minutes/day; 95% CI -47.8 to 24.8) and objective sedentary behaviour (ActiGraph: MD -23.0minutes/day; 95% CI -8.9 to 55.0). Small improvements were found in objective physical activity and fear-avoidance beliefs. The option to gradually increase physical activity was activated for six patients (15%). On average, patients received seven face-to-face sessions alongside the web application. Conclusions: The results of this study provide the first indication of the effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP, particularly for disability and pain among patients with LBP. Future studies will focus on end-user experiences and (cost-) effectiveness.
LINK
