Dataset Information

Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial).

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability in Nepal and elsewhere. Management of LBP that is evidence-based, easily accessible, cost-effective and culturally appropriate is desirable. The primary aim of this feasibility study is to determine if it is feasible to conduct a full randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of pain education as an intervention for individuals with LBP in Nepal, relative to guideline-based physiotherapy treatment. The findings of the study will inform the planning of a full clinical trial and if any modifications are required to the protocol before undertaking a full trial. METHODS/ANALYSIS:This protocol describes an assessor-blinded feasibility clinical trial investigating feasibility of the pain education intervention in patients with non-specific LBP in a physiotherapy hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. Forty patients with LBP will be randomly allocated to either pain education or guideline-based physiotherapy treatment (control). Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at a 1?week post-treatment. The primary outcomes are related to feasibility, including: (1) participant willingness to participate in a randomised clinical trial, (2) feasibility of assessor blinding, (3) eligibility and recruitment rates, (4) acceptability of screening procedures and random allocation, (5) possible contamination between the groups, (6) intervention credibility, (7) intervention adherence, (8) treatment satisfaction and (9) difficulty in understanding the interventions being provided. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION:The protocol was approved by Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC; registration number: 422/2017) and University of Otago Human Ethics Committee for Health (registration number: H17/157). The results of the study will be presented at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03387228; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Sharma S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6089285 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial).

Sharma Saurab S Jensen Mark P MP Moseley G Lorimer GL Abbott J Haxby JH

BMJ open 20180810 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability in Nepal and elsewhere. Management of LBP that is evidence-based, easily accessible, cost-effective and culturally appropriate is desirable. The primary aim of this feasibility study is to determine if it is feasible to conduct a full randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of pain education as an intervention for individuals with LBP in Nepal, relative to guideline-based physiotherapy tre ...[more]

PMID: 30099402

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to: (1) develop pain education materials in Nepali and (2) determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised clinical trial (RCT) of a pain education intervention using these materials in Nepal. DESIGN:A two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, feasibility RCT. SETTING:A rehabilitation hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. PARTICIPANTS:Forty Nepalese with non-specific low back pain (mean [SD] age 41 [14] years; 12 [30%] women). INTERVENTIONS:Eligible participants were randomised, by concealed, 1:1 allocation, to one of two groups: (1) a pain education intervention and (2) a guideline-based physiotherapy active control group intervention. Each intervention was delivered by a physiotherapist in a single, 1-hour, individualised treatment session. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcomes were related to feasibility: recruitment, retention and treatment adherence of participants, feasibility and blinding of outcome assessments, fidelity of treatment delivery, credibility of, and satisfaction with, treatment. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 1 week post-treatment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Pain intensity, pain interference, pain catastrophising, sleep disturbance, resilience, global rating of change, depression and quality of life. Statistical analyses were conducted blind to group allocation. RESULTS:Forty participants were recruited. Thirty-eight participants (95%) completed the 1-week post-treatment assessment. Most primary outcomes surpassed the a priori thresholds for feasibility. Several findings have important implications for designing a full trial. Secondary analyses suggest clinical benefit of pain education over the control intervention, with larger decrease in pain intensity (mean difference=3.56 [95% CI 0.21 to 6.91]) and pain catastrophising (mean difference=6.16 [95% CI 0.59 to 11.72]) in the pain education group. Pain intensity would seem an appropriate outcome for a full clinical trial. One minor adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION:We conclude that a full RCT of pain education for back pain in Nepal is feasible and warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03387228; Results.

Project description:IntroductionChronic neuropathic low back pain (CNLBP) is a debilitating condition in which established medical treatments seldom alleviate symptoms. Evidence demonstrates that high-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) reduces pain and improves health-related quality of life in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), but evidence of this effect is limited in individuals with CNLBP who have not had surgery. The aim of this multicentre randomised trial is to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for this population.MethodsThis is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. A total of 96 patients with CNLBP who have not had spinal surgery will be implanted with an epidural lead and a sham lead outside the epidural space without a screening trial. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (intervention group) or to sham 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (control group) after receiving the full implant. The SCS devices will be programmed identically using a cathodal cascade. Participants will use their handheld programmer to alter the intensity of the stimulation as per routine practice. The primary outcome will be a 7-day daily pain diary. Secondary outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index, complications, EQ-5D-5 L, and health and social care costs. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after device activation. The primary analyses will compare primary and secondary outcomes between groups at 6 months, while adjusting for baseline outcome scores. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) will be calculated at 6 months and over the lifetime of the patient.DiscussionThe outcomes of this trial will inform clinical practice and healthcare policy on the role of high-frequency 10 kHz SCS for use in patients with CNLBP who have not had surgery.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT03470766. Registered on 20 March 2018.DisclaimerThe views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The NIHR had no role in the study design, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication.Roles and responsibilitiesAK, SP, DP, SW, RST, AC, SE, LM, RD and JF all contributed to the trial design and to securing trial funding. AK, JR, SP, DP, and SE are involved in the recruitment, the intervention and the follow-up. SW will perform data collection and analysis. RST will be responsible for the statistical analysis, and RD will be responsible for the health economic analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The role of injections of therapeutic substances into the back as treatment for low back pain is unclear. Facet joint injections are widely used despite the absence of evidence of sustained benefit. We hypothesise that facet joint injections might facilitate engagement with physiotherapist-led, best usual care (a combined physical and psychological programme) and is a clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with suspected low back pain of facet joint origin. METHODS/DESIGN:We present here the protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial for a main trial to test the above hypotheses. Patients referred to secondary care with persistent non-specific low back pain will be screened and invited to take part in the study. Those who meet the eligibility criteria will be invited for a physiotherapy assessment to confirm trial eligibility and for baseline data collection. All participants (n?=?150) will be offered the best usual care package with physical and psychological components. Those randomised into the intervention arm (n?=?75) will, in addition, receive intra-articular facet joint injections with local anaesthetic and steroids. Primary outcome data will be collected using daily and then weekly text messaging service for a pain score on a 0-10 scale. Questionnaire follow-up will be at 3, 6, and 12 months. Evaluation of trial processes and health economic analyses, including a value of information analysis, will be undertaken. The process evaluation will be mixed methods and will include the views of all stakeholders. DISCUSSION:Whilst this trial is a feasibility study it is currently one of the largest trials in this area. The outcomes will provide some evidence on the use of facet joint injections for patients with clinically diagnosed facet joint pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT identifier 2014-000682-50, (registered on 12 February 14). ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN93184143 DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN93184143 (registered on 27 February 2014).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Low back pain is one of the most common and burdensome chronic conditions worldwide. Lifestyle factors, such as excess weight, physical inactivity, poor diet and smoking, are linked to low back pain chronicity and disability. There are few high-quality randomised controlled trials that investigate the effects of targeting lifestyle risk factors in people with chronic low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP) for low back pain targeting weight, physical activity, diet and smoking to reduce disability in patients with chronic low back pain compared with usual care. This is a randomised controlled trial, with participants stratified by body mass index, allocated 1:1 to the HeLP intervention or usual physiotherapy care. HeLP involves three main components: (1) clinical consultations with a physiotherapist and dietitian; (2) educational resources; and (3) telephone-based health coaching support for lifestyle risk factors. The primary outcome is disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, weight, quality of life and smoking status. Data will be collected at baseline, and at weeks 6, 12, 26 and 52. Patients with chronic low back pain who have at least one health risk factor (are overweight or obese, are smokers and have inadequate physical activity or fruit and vegetable consumption) will be recruited from primary or secondary care, or the community. Primary outcome data will be analysed by intention to treat using linear mixed-effects regression models. We will conduct three supplementary analyses: causal mediation analysis, complier average causal effects analysis and economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study was approved by the Hunter New England Research Ethics Committee (Approval No 17/02/15/4.05), and the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No H-2017-0222). Outcomes of this trial and supplementary analyses will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12617001288314.

Project description:IntroductionExercise therapy is the most recommended treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). Effect sizes for exercises are usually small to moderate and could be due to the heterogeneity of people presenting with LBP. Thus, if patients could be better matched to exercise based on individual factors, then the effects of treatment could be greater. A recently published study provided evidence of better outcomes when patients are matched to the appropriate exercise type. The study demonstrated that a 15-item questionnaire, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ), could identify patients who responded best to one of the two exercise approaches for LBP (motor control and graded activity). The primary aim of the current study isill be to evaluate whether preidentified baseline characteristics, including the LSIQ, can modify the response to two of the most common exercise therapies for non-specific LBP. Secondary aims include an economic evaluations with a cost-effectiveness analysis.Methods and analysisParticipants (n=414) will be recruited by primary care professionals and randomised (1:1) to receive motor control exercises or graded activity. Participants will undergo 12 sessions of exercise therapy over an 8-week period. The primary outcome will be physical function at 2 months using the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes will be pain intensity, function and quality of life measured at 2, 6 and 12 months. Potential effect modifiers will be the LSIQ, self-efficacy, coping strategies, kinesiophobia and measures of nociceptive pain and central sensitisation. We will construct linear mixed models with terms for participants (fixed), treatment group, predictor (potential effect modifier), treatment group×predictor (potential effect modifier), physiotherapists, treatment group×physiotherapists and baseline score for the dependent variable.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrate Research Ethics Board. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04283409.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) improves functional capacity and quality of life and provides secondary prevention benefits in individuals with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and intermittent claudication (IC). However, pain and patient lack of knowledge are key barriers to the uptake of, and adherence to, PA recommendations. This trial will test the efficacy and feasibility of a non-invasive pain management intervention with and without patient education to improve PA in individuals with PAD and IC.MethodsThis is a randomised, controlled assessor-blinded feasibility trial with four parallel groups. Eighty adults with PAD and IC will be randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to Active TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation), Placebo TENS, Active TENS + Patient education or Placebo TENS + Patient education groups. All groups will continue to receive usual care over the intervention period. Participants randomised to Active TENS will receive a TENS device (preset at 120 Hz, 200 μs) and will be instructed to use the device daily at home or elsewhere for 6 weeks with a patient-determined intensity of "strong but comfortable". Placebo TENS group participants will receive the same model of TENS device and instructions for use as those in the active group, except that the stimulation dose will be safely altered to produce non-therapeutic, ineffective stimulation. Participants randomised to patient education will receive a one-off 3-h workshop of structured group education (four to five persons in each group) and three sets of twice-weekly phone calls. Efficacy outcomes will be assessed at baseline, after 6 weeks of intervention and at 3 months follow-up. Absolute claudication distance using the Gardner treadmill protocol will be assessed as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will assess initial claudication distance, daily PA and patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, pain self-efficacy, depression, disease perception and walking impairment pain intensity and quality. Feasibility outcomes will assess rates of recruitment, retention and adherence. Focus groups with participants at the end of the trial will explore the acceptability of the interventions.DiscussionThis trial will determine the efficacy and feasibility of using a low-cost, CE-marked non-invasive pain management modality delivered with or without a patient-centred education intervention to improve PA in individuals with PAD and IC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03204825 . Registered on 2 July 2017.

Project description:IntroductionLong waiting time is an important barrier to accessing recommended care for low back pain (LBP) in Australia's public health system. This study describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to establish the feasibility of delivering and evaluating stratified care integrated with telehealth ('Rapid Stratified Telehealth'), which aims to reduce waiting times for LBP.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a single-centre feasibility and pilot RCT with nested qualitative interviews. Sixty participants with LBP newly referred to a hospital outpatient clinic will be randomised to receive Rapid Stratified Telehealth or usual care. Rapid Stratified Telehealth involves matching the mode and type of care to participants' risk of persistent disabling pain (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and presence of potential radiculopathy. 'Low risk' patients are matched to one session of advice over the telephone, 'medium risk' to telehealth physiotherapy plus App-based exercises, 'high risk' to telehealth physiotherapy, App-based exercises, and an online pain education programme, and 'potential radiculopathy' fast tracked to usual in-person care. Primary outcomes include the feasibility of delivering Rapid Stratified Telehealth (ie, acceptability assessed through interviews with clinicians and patients, intervention fidelity, appointment duration, App useability and online pain education programme usage) and evaluating Rapid Stratified Telehealth in a future trial (ie, recruitment rates, consent rates, lost to follow-up and missing data). Secondary outcomes include waiting times, number of appointments, intervention and healthcare costs, clinical outcomes (pain, function, quality of life, satisfaction), healthcare use and adverse events (AEs). Quantitative analyses will be descriptive and inform a future adequately-powered RCT. Interview data will be analysed using thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study has received approval from the Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone: X21-0221). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12621001104842.

Dataset Information

Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial).

Publications

Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets