Dataset Information

Self-efficacy and self-care-related outcomes following Alexander Technique lessons for people with chronic neck pain in the ATLAS randomised, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

ATLAS was a pragmatic randomised (1:1:1 ratio), controlled trial recruiting patients with chronic neck pain (N?=?517) and evaluating one-to-one Alexander Technique lessons, or acupuncture, each plus usual care, compared with usual care alone. The primary outcome (12-month Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire [NPQ]) demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful reductions in neck pain and associated disability for both interventions compared with usual care alone. Here we describe pre-specified, self-efficacy and other self-care-related outcomes for the Alexander group compared with usual care.

Methods

Participants reported on 11 self-efficacy/self-care-related outcome measures at 6 and 12 months. Linear or logistic regression models evaluated changes in parameters and impact on NPQ. Alexander teachers reported on lesson content.

Results

Lesson content reflected standard UK practice. The Alexander group (n?=?172) reported significantly greater improvements, compared with usual care alone (n?=?172), in most of the self-efficacy/self-care measures (9/11 measures at 6 months, and 8/11 at 12 months), including the ability to reduce pain in daily life. At 6 months, 81% (106/131) of Alexander participants reported significant improvement in the way they lived and cared for themselves (versus 23% for usual care), increasing to 87% (117/135) at 12 months (usual care: 25%). NPQ scores at both 6 and 12 months were related to improvement in self-efficacy and ability to reduce pain during daily life.

Conclusions

Alexander Technique lessons led to long-term improvements in the way participants lived their daily lives and managed their neck pain. Alexander lessons promote self-efficacy and self-care, with consequent reductions in chronic neck pain.

SUBMITTER: Woodman J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5842361 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Self-efficacy and self-care-related outcomes following Alexander Technique lessons for people with chronic neck pain in the ATLAS randomised, controlled trial.

Woodman Julia J Ballard Kathleen K Hewitt Catherine C MacPherson Hugh H

European journal of integrative medicine 20180101

<h4>Introduction</h4>ATLAS was a pragmatic randomised (1:1:1 ratio), controlled trial recruiting patients with chronic neck pain (N = 517) and evaluating one-to-one Alexander Technique lessons, or acupuncture, each plus usual care, compared with usual care alone. The primary outcome (12-month Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire [NPQ]) demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful reductions in neck pain and associated disability for both interventions compared with usual care alone. Here ...[more]

PMID: 29527245

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionJoint mobilisation and manipulation often results in immediate pain relief in people with neck pain. However, the biological mechanisms behind pain relief are largely unknown. There is preliminary evidence that joint mobilisation and manipulation lessens the upregulated neuroimmune responses in people with persistent neck pain.Methods and analysisThis study protocol describes a randomised placebo-controlled trial to investigate whether joint mobilisation and manipulation influence neuroimmune responses in people with persistent neck pain. People with persistent neck pain (N=100) will be allocated, in a randomised and concealed manner, to the experimental or control group (ratio 3:1). Short-term (ie, baseline, immediately after and 2 hours after the intervention) neuroimmune responses will be assessed, such as inflammatory marker concentration following in vitro stimulation of whole blood cells, systemic inflammatory marker concentrations directly from blood samples, phenotypic analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells and serum cortisol. Participants assigned to the experimental group (N=75) will receive cervical mobilisations targeting the painful and/or restricted cervical segments and a distraction manipulation of the cervicothoracic junction. Participants assigned to the control group (N=25) will receive a placebo mobilisation and placebo manipulation. Using linear mixed models, the short-term neuroimmune responses will be compared (1) between people in the experimental and control group and (2) within the experimental group, between people who experience a good outcome and those with a poor outcome. Furthermore, the association between the short-term neuroimmune responses and pain relief following joint mobilisation and manipulation will be tested in the experimental group.Ethics and disseminationThis trial is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Amsterdam University Medical Centre, location VUmc (Approval number: 2018.181).Trial registration numberNL6575 (trialregister.nl.

Project description:Spinal mobilisation/manipulation is a common intervention for spinal pain, yet the working mechanisms are largely unknown. A randomised placebo-controlled trial was conducted to (1) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisation/manipulation and placebo spinal mobilisation/manipulation; (2) compare the immediate neuroimmune responses of those with a good outcome with those of a poor outcome following spinal mobilisation/manipulation; and (3) explore the association between neuroimmune responses and pain reduction. One hundred patients were randomly allocated to spinal mobilisation/manipulation or a placebo mobilisation/manipulation. Primary outcomes were whole blood in-vitro evoked released concentrations of IL-1β and TNF-α measured 10 min and 2 h after the intervention. Immediate effects were studied because successful mobilisation/manipulation is often associated with immediate pain reduction, and immediate neuroimmune responses are less affected by potential confounders than long-term responses. Secondary outcomes included multiple systemic inflammatory marker concentrations, phenotypic analysis of white blood cells and clinical outcomes. Outcomes were compared between the experimental and placebo group, and between people with a good and poor outcome in the experimental group. Estimates of intervention effects were based on intention-to-treat analyses, by using linear mixed-effect models. Although there was a substantial difference in pain reduction between groups (mean (SD) difference visual analogue scale: 30 (21) mm at 10 min and 32 (21) mm at 2 h (p < 0.001) in favour of mobilisation/manipulation, there were no differences in primary outcomes between groups or between people with a good and poor outcome (p ≥ 0.10). In conclusion, possible neuroimmune responses following spinal mobilisations/manipulation cannot be identified at a systemic level. Future research may focus on longer treatment duration and more localised neuroimmune responses.

Project description:IntroductionNeck-specific exercises (NSEs) are commonly used for the treatment of chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP). However, it remains unclear whether baseline features can predict the response to neck-specific exercise (NSE) in people with CNSNP. This systematic review aims to assess whether baseline features such as age, gender, muscle activity, fatigability, endurance and fear of movement can predict pain and disability reduction following a NSE intervention.Methods and analysisThis systematic review and meta-analysis will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocols guidelines checklist. The Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases; key journals; and grey literature will be searched up until June 2023, including medical subject heading terms and keywords combinations. Included studies will investigate an association between the baseline features and pain and disability outcomes following NSE in people with CNSNP. Two independent reviewers will oversee the searching, screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and Risk-Of-Bias tool for randomised trials 2 (ROB 2). The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Using standardised forms, details regarding study characteristics, baseline features (predictive factors), intervention, primary outcome and effect size (OR and 95% CI of each predictive factor and p value) will be extracted from included studies. Meta-analyses will be considered, if the studies are sufficiently homogeneous and if three or more studies investigate the same or comparable factors that predict the same response (pain intensity or disability). In the event that less than three studies investigated the same factors, a narrative synthesis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required as this review will be based on published studies. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42023408332.

Project description:BackgroundLearning to predict threatening events enables an organism to engage in protective behavior and prevent harm. Failure to differentiate between cues that truly predict danger and those that do not, however, may lead to indiscriminate fear and avoidance behaviors, which in turn may contribute to disability in people with persistent pain. We aimed to test whether people with persistent neck pain exhibit contingency learning deficits in predicting pain relative to pain-free, gender-and age-matched controls.MethodWe developed a differential predictive learning task with a neck pain-relevant scenario. During the acquisition phase, images displaying two distinct neck positions were presented and participants were asked to predict whether these neck positions would lead to pain in a fictive patient with persistent neck pain (see fictive patient scenario details in Appendix A). After participants gave their pain-expectancy judgment in the hypothetical scenario, the verbal outcome (PAIN or NO PAIN) was shown on the screen. One image (CS+) was followed by the outcome "PAIN", while another image (CS-) was followed by the outcome "NO PAIN". During the generalization phase, novel but related images depicting neck positions along a continuum between the CS+ and CS- images (generalization stimuli; GSs) were introduced to assess the generalization of acquired predictive learning to the novel images; the GSs were always followed by the verbal outcome "NOTES UNREADABLE" to prevent extinction learning. Finally, an extinction phase was included in which all images were followed by "NO PAIN" assessing the persistence of pain-expectancy judgments following disconfirming information.ResultsDifferential pain-expectancy learning was reduced in people with neck pain relative to controls, resulting from patients giving significantly lower pain-expectancy judgments for the CS+, and significantly higher pain-expectancy judgments for the CS-. People with neck pain also demonstrated flatter generalization gradients relative to controls. No differences in extinction were noted.DiscussionThe results support the hypothesis that people with persistent neck pain exhibit reduced differential pain-expectancy learning and flatter generalization gradients, reflecting deficits in predictive learning. Contrary to our hypothesis, no differences in extinction were found. These findings may be relevant to understanding behavioral aspects of chronic pain.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is increasingly being used for many conditions including chronic neck pain. However the evidence remains inconclusive, indicating the need for further well-designed research. The aim of this study was to conduct a pilot randomised controlled parallel arm trial, to establish key features required for the design and implementation of a large-scale trial on acupuncture for chronic neck pain. METHODS: Patients whose GPs had diagnosed neck pain were recruited from one general practice, and randomised to receive usual GP care only, or acupuncture (up to 10 treatments over 3 months) as an adjunctive treatment to usual GP care. The primary outcome measure was the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) at 3 months. The primary analysis was to determine the sample size for the full scale study. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients with neck pain identified from the GP database, 28 (12.3%) consenting patients were eligible to participate in the pilot and 24 (10.5%) were recruited to the trial. Ten patients were randomised to acupuncture, receiving an average of eight treatments from one of four acupuncturists, and 14 were randomised to usual GP care alone. The sample size for the full scale trial was calculated from a clinically meaningful difference of 5% on the NPQ and, from this pilot, an adjusted standard deviation of 15.3%. Assuming 90% power at the 5% significance level, a sample size of 229 would be required in each arm in a large-scale trial when allowing for a loss to follow-up rate of 14%. In order to achieve this sample, one would need to identify patients from databases of GP practices with a total population of 230,000 patients, or approximately 15 GP practices roughly equal in size to the one involved in this study (i.e. 15,694 patients). CONCLUSION: This pilot study has allowed a number of recommendations to be made to facilitate the design of a large-scale trial, which in turn will help to clarify the existing evidence base on acupuncture for neck pain.

Project description:IntroductionPain management in patients with hip fractures can be challenging. Poor pain control is associated with reduced mobility and increased morbidity. Inadequate analgesia in patients with dementia is a concern. After using several different alternatives, transdermal buprenorphine was chosen as a standardised approach for analgesia in patients with fragility fracture in our hospital. There is limited evidence on the use of buprenorphine in this population. Our aim was to investigate the safety and effectiveness of transdermal buprenorphine in patients with hip fractures.MethodsA review of consecutive patients presenting with a hip fracture from June 2018 to December 2018 was conducted using medical records. Our primary outcome was the incidence of complications as a consequence of transdermal buprenorphine. Our secondary outcome was adequate analgesia measured by reviewing the requirement for analgesia during the first week following the patient's admission. Analgesia demands were considered adequate if patients required less than 20 mg of oral morphine in total during the first week following injury.ResultsIn total, 148 patients presented with a hip fracture during the study period. 128 patients had documented evidence of buprenorphine patch application. Complete data was available for the primary outcome of complications in all cases. Data was available for the secondary outcome in 124 patients. Buprenorphine was discontinued in 24 patients (19%), most commonly due to due to concerns about contribution to hypoactive delirium (9%), and when strong analgesia was no longer required (4%). There were no severe complications. Adequate analgesia was achieved using this regime in 68% patients. 38 patients (32%) required more than 20 mg of oral morphine sulphate solution in the first week post-admission.ConclusionThis series suggests that transdermal buprenorphine is safe and effective in the management of pain following a neck of femur fragility fracture.

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common and costly conditions. Self-management is a key element in the care of persistent LBP and NP. Artificial intelligence can be used to support and tailor self-management interventions, but their effectiveness needs to be ascertained. The aims of this trial are (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of an individually tailored app-based self-management intervention (selfBACK) adjunct to usual care in people with LBP and/or NP in secondary care compared with usual care only, and (2) to compare the effectiveness of selfBACK with a web-based self-management intervention without individual tailoring (e-Help).Methods and analysisThis is a randomised, assessor-blind clinical trial with three parallel arms: (1) selfBACK app adjunct to usual care; (2) e-Help website adjunct to usual care and (3) usual care only. Patients referred to St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim (Norway) with LBP and/or NP and accepted for assessment/treatment at the multidisciplinary outpatient clinic for back or neck rehabilitation are invited to the study. Eligible and consenting participants are randomised to one of the three arms with equal allocation ratio. We aim to include 279 participants (93 in each arm). Outcome variables are assessed at baseline (before randomisation) and at 6-week, 3-month and 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome is musculoskeletal health measured by the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire at 3 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation will document patients' and clinicians' experiences with the interventions. A health economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of both interventions' adjunct to usual care.Ethics and disseminationThe trial is approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Central Norway (Ref. 2019/64084). The results of the trial will be published in peer-review journals and presentations at national and international conferences relevant to this topic.Trial registration numberNCT04463043.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-administration of medicines by patients whilst in hospital is being increasingly promoted despite little evidence to show the risks and benefits. Pain control after total knee replacement (TKR) is known to be poor. The aim of the study was to determine if patients operated on with a TKR who self-medicate their oral analgesics in the immediate post-operative period have better pain control than those who receive their pain control by nurse-led drug rounds (Treatment as Usual (TAU)).MethodsA prospective, parallel design, open-label, randomised controlled trial comparing pain control in patient-directed self-management of pain (PaDSMaP) with nurse control of oral analgesia (TAU) after a TKR. Between July 2011 and March 2013, 144 self-medicating adults were recruited at a secondary care teaching hospital in the UK. TAU patients (n = 71) were given medications by a nurse after their TKR. PaDSMaP patients (n = 73) took oral medications for analgesia and co-morbidities after two 20 min training sessions reinforced with four booklets. Primary outcome was pain (100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) at 3 days following TKR surgery or at discharge (whichever came soonest). Seven patients did not undergo surgery for reasons unrelated to the study and were excluded from the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.ResultsITT analysis did not detect any significant differences between the two groups' pain scores. A per protocol (but underpowered) analysis of the 60% of patients able to self-medicate found reduced pain compared to the TAU group at day 3/discharge, (VAS -9.9 mm, 95% CI -18.7, - 1.1). One patient in the self-medicating group over-medicated but suffered no harm.ConclusionSelf-medicating patients did not have better (lower) pain scores compared to the nurse-managed patients following TKR. This cohort of patients were elderly with multiple co-morbidities and may not be the ideal target group for self-medication.Trial registrationISRCTN10868989 . Registered 22 March 2012, retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Self-efficacy and self-care-related outcomes following Alexander Technique lessons for people with chronic neck pain in the ATLAS randomised, controlled trial.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Self-efficacy and self-care-related outcomes following Alexander Technique lessons for people with chronic neck pain in the ATLAS randomised, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets