Dataset Information

Comparison of the effectiveness of an e-health program versus a home rehabilitation program in patients with chronic low back pain: A double blind randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT:

Objetive

We conducted a randomized double blind clinical trial, to compare the effectiveness of McKenzie exercises and electroanalgesia via an e-Health program versus a home rehabilitation program on functionality, pain, fear of movement and quality of life in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain.

Methods

Seventy-four participants with non-specific chronic low back pain were randomized to either the e- Health program group (n = 39) or the home rehabilitation program group (n = 35). The interventions consisted of the e-Health program group performing McKenzie exercises and received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, while the home rehabilitation group attended an information session to explain the exercises, which they then performed at home with printed instructions. Both groups performed 3 weekly sessions for 8 weeks. The following were analyzed main measures: pain, disability, fear of movement, quality of life, trunk muscle endurance and trunk anteflexion motion were assessed at baseline and at 2 months.

Results

Independent samples Student’s t-tests showed that although the patients who followed the e-Health program showed significantly greater improvement than those who followed the home disability rehabilitation program in terms of intensity of pain, lumbar flexion mobility (P < 0.001), and the following dimensions of quality of life (P < 0.005), both groups improved significantly in the immediate post-treatment follow up compared with baseline scores.

Conclusions

Patients with chronic low back pain who followed an unsupervised home intervention supported by an individualized video exercise program showed greater post-treatment improvement than those who followed the same program with printed instructions.

SUBMITTER: Lara-Palomo I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8801654 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain.ObjectiveWe aimed to conduct a double-blind, parallel-arm, single-cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported nonmalignant low back pain with duration of 6 months or more and with average pain intensity of 4 or more/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 daily (56-day) VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (immersive pain relief skills VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were the between-group effect of EaseVRx versus Sham VR across time points, and the between-within interaction effect representing the change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep over time (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework.ResultsThe study sample was 179 adults (female: 76.5%, 137/179; Caucasian: 90.5%, 162/179; at least some college education: 91.1%, 163/179; mean age: 51.5 years [SD 13.1]; average pain intensity: 5/10 [SD 1.2]; back pain duration ?5 years: 67%, 120/179). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx versus Sham VR (P<.001). For the between-groups factor, EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes (highest P value=.009), and between-groups Cohen d effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.49, indicating superiority was moderately clinically meaningful. For EaseVRx, large pre-post effect sizes ranged from 1.17 to 1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. Between-group comparisons for Physical Function and Sleep Disturbance showed superiority for the EaseVRx group versus the Sham VR group (P=.022 and .013, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, pain acceptance, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (P<.01) but not for Sham VR.ConclusionsEaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/25291.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The Pain Toolkit is a self-management tool for people with persistent pain. It is available for use worldwide in multiple formats. To date, no studies have investigated the effectiveness of this intervention. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the Pain Toolkit in comparison with a simple education control for people with low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Participants who have been discharged from the North of England Regional Back Pain Pathway will be randomised using sealed, consecutively numbered opaque envelopes to receive either the Pain Toolkit and the Back Book (intervention group) or the Back Book only (control group). Both the therapist and the participant will be blind to group allocation. The primary outcome measure will be disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)). Secondary outcome measures will be pain (0-10 numerical scale), healthcare use (number of healthcare professional visits) and quality of life (EuroQol-5D). Outcome measures will be completed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Data will be analysed using analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline values. A change of 10 points in the ODI will be considered a clinically important change. Additionally, a subsample of participants from the intervention group will undergo semistructured interviews to explore individuals' experience of the Pain Toolkit. Participants will be asked questions about the ease of use and acceptability of the Pain Toolkit and also for how long they used the Toolkit. The qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Approval for the study was given by the Health Research Authority and the North East Newcastle, North Tyneside 2 Regional Ethics Committee (reference 18/NE/0144) and Teesside University (reference 176/17). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant patient groups, and local, national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03791164; Pre -results.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Physical exercise, as a treatment, is beneficial for the improvement of quality of life in patients with LBP, and it is widely accepted.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop a protocol for a feasibility study that is designed to compare the effectiveness of different interventions in reducing pain, functional, and psychosocial factors among patients with chronic LBP after 8 weeks of randomization.MethodsThis is a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial that will consist of individuals with chronic LBP who are aged between 18 and 65 years. Participants will be allocated, through block randomization, to one of the following groups: the motor control exercises (MCEs), pain education, MCEs+pain education, and usual care groups. The primary outcome will be pain intensity, and the secondary outcomes will be the pressure pain threshold, which will be measured with a digital algometer; LBP-related disability; fears and beliefs; the fear of movement; quality of life; mood states; and levels of depression and anxiety. The trial was approved by the ethics committee for research involving human beings of the Federal University of Pelotas (reference number: 5.717.390) in September 2022, and it will be conducted until August 2023.ResultsThe researchers are being trained to apply the questionnaires and carry out the interventions. Patient recruitment will begin at the end of 2022 and results are expected to be achieved by August 2023.ConclusionsOur trial will provide preliminary data regarding the feasibility and safety of MCEs and pain education for patients with LBP. It will also provide preliminary outcome data that can be used to identify the most efficient intervention and the level of health care that should be implemented in public health services.Trial registrationBrazilian Registry of Clinical Trials U1111-1221-4106; https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-2xx2r2/.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/31345.