Dataset Information

Single session compared with multiple sessions of education and exercise for older adults with spinal pain in an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a single session compared with multiple sessions of education and exercise for older adults with spinal pain treated conservatively in an advanced practice physiotherapy model of care.

Methods and analysis

In this pragmatic randomised controlled trial, 152 older adults (≥65 years old) with neck or back pain initially referred for a consultation in neurosurgery, but treated conservatively, will be recruited through the advanced practice physiotherapy neurosurgery CareAxis programme in the Montreal region (Quebec, Canada). In the CareAxis programme, older patients with spinal pain are triaged by an advance practice physiotherapist and are offered conservative care and only potential surgical candidates are referred to a neurosurgeon. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms: 1-a single session or 2-multiple sessions (6 sessions over 12 weeks) of education and exercise with the advance practice physiotherapist (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome measure will be the Brief Pain Inventory (pain severity and interference subscales). Secondary measures will include self-reported disability (the Neck Disability Index or Oswestry Disability Index), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, satisfaction with care questionnaires (9-item Visit-specific Satisfaction Questionnaire and MedRisk), and the EQ-5D-5L. Participants' healthcare resources use and related costs will be measured. Outcomes will be collected at baseline and at 6, 12 and 26 weeks after enrolment. Intention-to-treat analyses will be performed, and repeated mixed-model analysis of variance will assess differences between treatment arms. Cost-utility analyses will be conducted from the perspective of the healthcare system.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval has been obtained from the Comité d'éthique de la recherche du CIUSS de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (FWA00001935 and IRB00002087). Results of this study will be presented to different stakeholders, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

Protocol version

V.4 August 2021.

Trial registration number

NCT04868591; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Lafrance S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8424421 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to compare the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention with "usual" physiotherapy for patients with neck pain. Secondly, to evaluate the effect of patients' preferences on outcome. DESIGN: Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial eliciting preferences independently of randomisation. SETTING: Physiotherapy departments in a community setting in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. PARTICIPANTS: 268 patients (mean age 48 years) with subacute and chronic neck pain, who were referred by their general practitioner and randomly assigned to a brief physiotherapy intervention (one to three sessions) using cognitive behaviour principles to encourage self management and return to normal function or usual physiotherapy, at the discretion of the physiotherapist concerned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), a specific measure of functional disability resulting from neck pain. Also, the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire, a generic, health related, quality of life measure; and the Tampa scale for kinesophobia, a measure of fear and avoidance of movement. RESULTS: At 12 months, patients allocated to usual physiotherapy had a small but significant improvement in NPQ scores compared with patients in the brief intervention group (mean difference 1.99, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 3.52; P = 0.01). Although the result shows a significant inferiority of the intervention, the confidence interval shows that the effect could be in the non-inferiority range for the brief intervention (below 1.2 points of NPQ score). Patients who preferred the brief intervention and received this treatment had similar outcomes to patients receiving usual physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Usual physiotherapy may be only marginally better than a brief physiotherapy intervention for neck pain. Patients with a preference for the brief intervention may do at least as well with this approach. Additional training for the physiotherapists in cognitive behaviour techniques might improve this approach further.

Project description:ImportanceChronic low back pain (CLBP), the most prevalent chronic pain condition, imparts substantial disability and discomfort. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) reduces the effect of CLBP, but access is limited.ObjectiveTo determine whether a single class in evidence-based pain management skills (empowered relief) is noninferior to 8-session CBT and superior to health education at 3 months after treatment for improving pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, and other secondary outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis 3-arm randomized clinical trial collected data from May 24, 2017, to March 3, 2020. Participants included individuals in the community with self-reported CLBP for 6 months or more and an average pain intensity of at least 4 (range, 0-10, with 10 indicating worst pain imaginable). Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to (1) empowered relief, (2) health education (matched to empowered relief for duration and format), or (3) 8-session CBT. Self-reported data were collected at baseline, before treatment, and at posttreatment months 1, 2, and 3.Main outcomes and measuresGroup differences in Pain Catastrophizing Scale scores and secondary outcomes at month 3 after treatment. Pain intensity and pain interference were priority secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 263 participants were included in the analysis (131 women [49.8%], 130 men [49.4%], and 2 other [0.8%]; mean [SD] age, 47.9 [13.8] years) and were randomized into 3 groups: empowered relief (n = 87), CBT (n = 88), and health education (n = 88). Empowered relief was noninferior to CBT for pain catastrophizing scores at 3 months (difference from CBT, 1.39 [97.5% CI, -∞ to 4.24]). Empowered relief and CBT were superior to health education for pain catastrophizing scores (empowered relief difference from health education, -5.90 [95% CI, -8.78 to -3.01; P < .001]; CBT difference from health education, -7.29 [95% CI, -10.20 to -4.38; P < .001]). Pain catastrophizing score reductions for empowered relief and CBT at 3 months after treatment were clinically meaningful (empowered relief, -9.12 [95% CI, -11.6 to -6.67; P < .001]; CBT, -10.94 [95% CI, -13.6 to -8.32; P < .001]; health education, -4.60 [95% CI, -7.18 to -2.01; P = .001]). Between-group comparisons for pain catastrophizing at months 1 to 3 were adjusted for baseline pain catastrophizing scores and used intention-to-treat analysis. Empowered relief was noninferior to CBT for pain intensity and pain interference (priority secondary outcomes), sleep disturbance, pain bothersomeness, pain behavior, depression, and anxiety. Empowered relief was inferior to CBT for physical function.Conclusions and relevanceAmong adults with CLBP, a single-session pain management class resulted in clinically significant improvements in pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, and other secondary outcomes that were noninferior to 8-session CBT at 3 months.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167086.

Project description:Despite the increasing use of hip arthroscopy for hip pain, there is no level 1 evidence to support physiotherapy rehabilitation programs following this procedure. The aims of this study were to determine (i) what is the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating a targeted physiotherapy intervention for early-onset hip osteoarthritis (OA) post-hip arthroscopy? and (ii) what are the within-group treatment effects of the physiotherapy intervention and a health-education control group?This study was a pilot single-blind RCT conducted in a private physiotherapy clinic in Hobart, Australia. Patients included 17 volunteers (nine women; age 32 ± 8 years; body mass index = 25.6 ± 5.1 kg/m2) who were recruited 4-14 months post-hip arthroscopy, with chondropathy and/or labral pathology at the time of surgery. Interventions included a physiotherapy treatment program that was semi-standardised and consisted of (i) manual therapy; (ii) hip strengthening and functional retraining; and (iii) health education. Control treatment encompassed individualised health education sessions. The primary outcome measure was feasibility, which was reported as percentage of eligible participants enrolled, adherence with the intervention, and losses to follow-up. The research process was evaluated using interviews, and an estimated sample size for a definitive study is offered. Secondary outcomes included the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the International Hip Outcome Tool (IHOT-33) patient-reported outcomes.Seventeen out of 48 eligible patients (35%) were randomised. Adherence to the intervention was 100%, with no losses to follow-up. The estimated sample size for a full-scale RCT was 142 patients. The within-group (95% confidence intervals) change scores for the physiotherapy group were HOOS-Symptoms 6 points (-4 to 16); HOOS-Pain 10 points (-2 to 22); HOOS-Activity of Daily Living 8 points (0 to 16); HOOS-Sport 3 points (-12 to 19); HOOS-Quality of Life 3 points (-7 to 13); and IHOT-33 7 points (-10 to 25). The within-group (95% confidence intervals) change scores for the control group were HOOS-Symptoms -4 points (-17 to 9); HOOS-Pain -2 points (-18 to 13); HOOS-Activity of Daily Living -7 points (-17 to 4); HOOS-Sport 4 points (-16 to 23); HOOS-Quality of Life -5 points (-18 to 9); and IHOT-33 -4 points (-27 to 19). Suggestions to improve study design included greater supervision of exercises and increased access to physiotherapy appointments.Results support the feasibility of a full-scale RCT, and recommendations for an adequately powered and improved study to determine the efficacy of this physiotherapy intervention post-hip arthroscopy to reduce pain and improve function are provided.Australian Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000426684.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a very common and costly musculoskeletal disorder associated with a complex interplay of biopsychosocial factors. Cognitive functional therapy (CFT) represents a novel, patient-centred intervention which directly challenges pain-related behaviours in a cognitively integrated, functionally specific and graduated manner. CFT aims to target all biopsychosocial factors that are deemed to be barriers to recovery for an individual patient with NSCLBP. A recent randomised controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated the superiority of individualised CFT for NSCLBP compared to manual therapy combined with exercise. However, several previous RCTs have suggested that class-based interventions are as effective as individualised interventions. Therefore, it is important to examine whether an individualised intervention, such as CFT, demonstrates clinical effectiveness compared to a relatively cheaper exercise and education class. The current study will compare the clinical effectiveness of individualised CFT with a combined exercise and pain education class in people with NSCLBP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This study is a multicentre RCT. 214 participants, aged 18-75 years, with NSCLBP for at least 6 months will be randomised to one of two interventions across three sites. The experimental group will receive individualised CFT and the length of the intervention will be varied in a pragmatic manner based on the clinical progression of participants. The control group will attend six classes which will be provided over a period of 6-8 weeks. Participants will be assessed preintervention, postintervention and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcomes will be functional disability and pain intensity. Non-specific predictors, moderators and mediators of outcome will also be analysed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval has been obtained from the Mayo General Hospital Research Ethics Committee (MGH-14-UL). Outcomes will be disseminated through publication according to the SPIRIT statement and will be presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:(ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02145728).