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
The WHEELS app was developed using the intervention mapping framework. Intervention goals were determined based on a needs assessment, after which behavior change strategies were selected to achieve these goals. These were applied in an app that was pretested on ease of use and satisfaction, followed by minor adjustments. Subsequently, a 12-week pre-post pilot study was performed to explore usability, feasibility, and effectiveness of the app. Participants received either a remote-guided or stand-alone intervention. Responses to semistructured interviews were analyzed using content analysis, and questionnaires (System Usability Score [SUS], and Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease) were administered to investigate usability and feasibility. Effectiveness was determined by measuring outcomes on physical activity, nutrition, sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), body composition, and other secondary outcomes pre and post intervention, and by calculating effect sizes (Hedges g).
LINK
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.OBJECTIVES: This study: (1) investigated the accuracy of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and skinfold thickness relative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the assessment of body composition in people with spinal cord injury (SCI), and whether sex and lesion characteristics affect the accuracy, (2) developed new prediction equations to estimate fat free mass (FFM) and percentage fat mass (FM%) in a general SCI population using BIA and skinfolds outcomes.SETTING: University, the Netherlands.METHODS: Fifty participants with SCI (19 females; median time since injury: 15 years) were tested by DXA, single-frequency BIA (SF-BIA), segmental multi-frequency BIA (segmental MF-BIA), and anthropometry (height, body mass, calf circumference, and skinfold thickness) during a visit. Personal and lesion characteristics were registered.RESULTS: Compared to DXA, SF-BIA showed the smallest mean difference in estimating FM%, but with large limits of agreement (mean difference = -2.2%; limits of agreement: -12.8 to 8.3%). BIA and skinfold thickness tended to show a better estimation of FM% in females, participants with tetraplegia, or with motor incomplete injury. New equations for predicting FFM and FM% were developed with good explained variances (FFM: R2 = 0.94; FM%: R2 = 0.66).CONCLUSIONS: None of the measurement techniques accurately estimated FM% because of the wide individual variation and, therefore, should be used with caution. The accuracy of the techniques differed in different subgroups. The newly developed equations for predicting FFM and FM% should be cross-validated in future studies.
