Dataset Information

Effectiveness of app-based relaxation for patients with chronic low back pain (Relaxback) and chronic neck pain (Relaxneck): study protocol for two randomized pragmatic trials.

ABSTRACT: Chronic low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are highly prevalent conditions resulting in high economic costs. Treatment guidelines recommend relaxation techniques, such as progressive muscle relaxation, as adjuvant therapies. Self-care interventions could have the potential to reduce costs in the health care system, but their effectiveness, especially in a usual care setting, is unclear. The aim of these two pragmatic randomized studies is to evaluate whether an additional app-delivered relaxation is more effective in the reduction of chronic LBP or NP than usual care alone.Each pragmatic randomized two-armed study aims to include a total of 220 patients aged 18 to 65 years with chronic (>12 weeks) LBP or NP and an average pain intensity of???4 on a numeric rating scale (NRS) in the 7 days before recruitment. The participants will be randomized into an intervention and a usual care group. The intervention group will be instructed to practice one of these 3 relaxation techniques on at least 5 days/week for 15 minutes/day over a period of 6 months starting on the day of randomization: autogenic training, mindfulness meditation, or guided imagery. Instructions and exercises will be provided using a smartphone app, baseline information will be collected using paper and pencil. Follow-up information (daily, weekly, and after 3 and 6 months) will be collected using electronic diaries and questionnaires included in the app. The primary outcome measure will be the mean LBP or NP intensity during the first 3 months of intervention based on daily pain intensity measurements on a NRS (0?=?no pain, 10?=?worst possible pain). The secondary outcome parameters will include the mean pain intensity during the first 6 months after randomization based on daily measurements, the mean pain intensity measured weekly as the average pain intensity of the previous 7 days over 3 and 6 months, pain acceptance, 'LBP- and NP-related' stress, sick leave days, pain medication intake, adherence, suspected adverse reaction, and serious adverse events.The designed studies reflect a usual self-care setting and will provide evidence on a pragmatic self-care intervention that is easy to combine with care provided by medical professionals.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier Relaxback NCT02019498, Relaxneck NCT02019134 registered on 18 December 2013.

SUBMITTER: Blodt S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4301893 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of app-based relaxation for patients with chronic low back pain (Relaxback) and chronic neck pain (Relaxneck): study protocol for two randomized pragmatic trials.

Blödt Susanne S Pach Daniel D Roll Stephanie S Witt Claudia M CM

Trials 20141215

<h4>Background</h4>Chronic low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are highly prevalent conditions resulting in high economic costs. Treatment guidelines recommend relaxation techniques, such as progressive muscle relaxation, as adjuvant therapies. Self-care interventions could have the potential to reduce costs in the health care system, but their effectiveness, especially in a usual care setting, is unclear. The aim of these two pragmatic randomized studies is to evaluate whether an additional ...[more]

PMID: 25511185

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic neck pain is a highly prevalent condition. Learning a relaxation technique is recommended by numerous guidelines for chronic neck pain. Smartphone apps can provide relaxation exercises; however, their effectiveness, especially in a self-care setting, is unclear.ObjectiveThe aim of this pragmatic randomized trial is to evaluate whether app-based relaxation exercises, including audio-based autogenic training, mindfulness meditation, or guided imagery, are more effective in reducing chronic neck pain than usual care alone.MethodsSmartphone owners aged 18 to 65 years with chronic (>12 weeks) neck pain and the previous week's average neck pain intensity ≥4 on the Numeric Rating Scale (0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain) were randomized into either an intervention group to practice app-based relaxation exercises or a control group (usual care and app for data entry only). For both groups, the follow-up data were collected using app-based diaries and questionnaires. The primary outcome was the mean neck pain intensity during the first 3 months based on daily measurements. Secondary outcomes included neck pain based on weekly measurements, pain acceptance, neck pain-related stress, sick-leave days, pain medication intake, and adherence, which were all measured until the 6-month follow-up. For the primary analysis, analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline neck pain intensity was used.ResultsWe screened 748 participants and enrolled 220 participants (mean age 38.9, SD 11.3 years; mean baseline neck pain 5.7, SD 1.3 points). The mean neck pain intensity in both groups decreased over 3 months; however, no statistically significant difference between the groups was found (intervention: 4.1 points, 95% CI 3.8-4.4; control: 3.8 points, 95% CI 3.5-4.1; group difference: 0.3 points, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.7; P=.23). In addition, no statistically significant between-group differences regarding neck pain intensity after 6 months, responder rate, pain acceptance, pain medication intake, or sick-leave days were observed. There were no serious adverse events that were considered related to the trial intervention. In week 12, only 40% (44/110) of the participants in the intervention group continued to practice the exercises with the app.ConclusionsThe study app did not effectively reduce chronic neck pain or keep the participants engaged in exercising in a self-care setting. Future studies on app-based relaxation interventions should take into account the most recent scientific findings for behavior change techniques.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02019134; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02019134.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/1745-6215-15-490.

Project description:A model for integrative medicine (IM) adapted to Swedish primary care was previously developed. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the IM model versus conventional primary care in the management of patients with non-specific back/neck pain. Specific objectives included the exploration of recruitment and retention rates, patient and care characteristics, clinical differences and effect sizes between groups, selected outcome measures and power calculations to inform the basis of a full-scale trial.Eighty patients with back/neck pain of at least two weeks duration were randomised to the two types of care. Outcome measures were standardised health related quality of life (the eight domains of SF-36) complemented by a set of exploratory "IM tailored" outcomes targeting self-rated disability, stress and well-being (0-10 scales); days in pain (0-14); and the use of analgesics and health care over the last two weeks (yes/no). Data on clinical management were derived from medical records. Outcome changes from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks were used to explore the differences between the groups.Seventy-five percent (80/107) of screened patients in general practice were eligible and feasible to enroll into the trial. Eighty-two percent (36/44) of the integrative and 75% (27/36) of the conventional care group completed follow-up after 16 weeks. Most patients had back/neck pain of at least three months duration. Conventional care typically comprised advice and prescription of analgesics, occasionally complemented with sick leave or a written referral to physiotherapy. IM care generally integrated seven treatment sessions from two different types of complementary therapies with conventional care over ten weeks. The study was underpowered to detect any statistically significant differences between the groups. One SF-36 domain showed a clinically relevant difference between groups that was also supported by a small distribution based effect size, i.e. vitality (-7.3 points, Cohen's d -0.34) which was in favour of IM. There was a clinical trend between groups showing that IM contributed to less use of prescription and non-prescription analgesics (-11.7 and - 9.7 percent units respectively) compared to conventional care. Exploring clinically relevant differences and the SF-36 as the basis for a main outcome measure showed that the sample sizes needed per arm to adequately power a full-scale trial depended on the target domain, i.e. ranging from 60 (vitality) to 339 (role emotion).This pilot study investigated the implementation of IM in the primary care management of non-specific back and neck pain. Recruiting patients and implementing IM in routine clinical practice was feasible. The results warrant further exploration into different perspectives and relevant combinations of outcome measures including the use of health resources, drugs and cost-effectiveness to help understand the relevance of IM in primary care. Future research should prioritize larger scale studies considering variability, pain duration and small to moderate treatment effects.Clinical trials NCT00565942.

Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain is a prevalent condition that causes a substantial health burden. Despite intensive and expensive clinical efforts, its prevalence is growing. Nonpharmacologic treatments are effective at improving pain-related outcomes; however, treatment effect sizes are often modest. Physical therapy (PT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) have the most consistent evidence of effectiveness. Growing evidence also supports mindfulness-based approaches. Discussions with providers and patients highlight the importance of discussing and trying options to find the treatment that works for them and determining what to do when initial treatment is not successful. Herein, we present the protocol for a study that will evaluate evidence-based, protocol-driven treatments using PT, CBT, or mindfulness to examine comparative effectiveness and optimal sequencing for patients with chronic low back pain.MethodsThe Optimized Multidisciplinary Treatment Programs for Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain (OPTIMIZE) Study will be a multisite, comparative effectiveness trial using a sequential multiple assessment randomized trial design enrolling 945 individuals with chronic low back pain. The co-primary outcomes will be disability (measured using the Oswestry Disability Index) and pain intensity (measured using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale). After baseline assessment, participants will be randomly assigned to PT or CBT. At week 10, participants who have not experienced at least 50% improvement in disability will be randomized to cross-over phase-1 treatments (e.g., PT to CBT) or to Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE). Treatment will consist of 8 weekly sessions. Long-term outcome assessments will be performed at weeks 26 and 52.DiscussionResults of this study may inform referring providers and patients about the most effective nonoperative treatment and/or sequence of nonoperative treatments to treat chronic low back pain.Trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered on March 1, 2019, with Clinicaltrials.gov under the registration number NCT03859713 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03859713).

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of app-based relaxation for patients with chronic low back pain (Relaxback) and chronic neck pain (Relaxneck): study protocol for two randomized pragmatic trials.

Publications

Effectiveness of app-based relaxation for patients with chronic low back pain (Relaxback) and chronic neck pain (Relaxneck): study protocol for two randomized pragmatic trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets