P029 Comparing the Impact of General Strength Conditioning and Motor Control Manual Therapy on Sleep Quality in Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomised Controlled Trial

G Vincent, E Craige, D Belavy, J Ford, C Miller, L Main, A Hahne, S Ferguson, P Owen
{"title":"P029 Comparing the Impact of General Strength Conditioning and Motor Control Manual Therapy on Sleep Quality in Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomised Controlled Trial","authors":"G Vincent, E Craige, D Belavy, J Ford, C Miller, L Main, A Hahne, S Ferguson, P Owen","doi":"10.1093/sleepadvances/zpad035.114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction There is strong evidence indicating interactions between sleep and chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, evidence on the effect of exercise training (first-line treatment for CLBP), especially of specific modes of exercise training, on sleep is limited. This study aimed to investigate the effect of two exercise-based interventions (general strength and conditioning [GSC] and motor control and manual therapy [MCMT]) on sleep quality in adults with CLBP. Methods We conducted a two-group parallel (1:1), randomised controlled trial. Forty adults (mean age [SD]: 34.7 [6.1] years) with CLBP were randomised to receive either GSC (n=20) or MCMT (n=20) for 6 months. Sleep quality and its sub-components (e.g., sleep disturbance, sleep duration) were measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Analysis employed an intention-to-treat approach and group-by-time effects were assessed with mixed linear effect models. Results Both GSC (PSQI mean change [95%CI]: -1.58 [-2.70, -0.46] points) and MCMT (-1.61 [ 2.79, -0.43]) improved sleep quality at 6 months, but no group-by-time effect was detected (β [95%CI]: 0.03 [-1.60, 1.65]). For sleep quality sub-components, GSC improved daytime dysfunction (-0.33 [-0.65, -.0.01]), but led to a small decline in sleep efficiency (0.06 [0.01, 0.10]). MCMT improved sleep disturbance ( 0.31 [-0.55, -0.07]). Conclusion Both GSC and MCMT improved sleep quality, although neither intervention appeared superior. Sleep disturbance was improved in the MCMT group and daytime dysfunction was improved in the GSC group. Future studies would benefit from including a true control, objective sleep measures, and investigation of potential mediators.","PeriodicalId":21861,"journal":{"name":"SLEEP Advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SLEEP Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sleepadvances/zpad035.114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Introduction There is strong evidence indicating interactions between sleep and chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, evidence on the effect of exercise training (first-line treatment for CLBP), especially of specific modes of exercise training, on sleep is limited. This study aimed to investigate the effect of two exercise-based interventions (general strength and conditioning [GSC] and motor control and manual therapy [MCMT]) on sleep quality in adults with CLBP. Methods We conducted a two-group parallel (1:1), randomised controlled trial. Forty adults (mean age [SD]: 34.7 [6.1] years) with CLBP were randomised to receive either GSC (n=20) or MCMT (n=20) for 6 months. Sleep quality and its sub-components (e.g., sleep disturbance, sleep duration) were measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Analysis employed an intention-to-treat approach and group-by-time effects were assessed with mixed linear effect models. Results Both GSC (PSQI mean change [95%CI]: -1.58 [-2.70, -0.46] points) and MCMT (-1.61 [ 2.79, -0.43]) improved sleep quality at 6 months, but no group-by-time effect was detected (β [95%CI]: 0.03 [-1.60, 1.65]). For sleep quality sub-components, GSC improved daytime dysfunction (-0.33 [-0.65, -.0.01]), but led to a small decline in sleep efficiency (0.06 [0.01, 0.10]). MCMT improved sleep disturbance ( 0.31 [-0.55, -0.07]). Conclusion Both GSC and MCMT improved sleep quality, although neither intervention appeared superior. Sleep disturbance was improved in the MCMT group and daytime dysfunction was improved in the GSC group. Future studies would benefit from including a true control, objective sleep measures, and investigation of potential mediators.
比较一般力量训练和运动控制手法治疗对成人慢性腰痛患者睡眠质量的影响:一项随机对照试验
有强有力的证据表明睡眠与慢性腰痛(CLBP)之间存在相互作用。然而,关于运动训练(CLBP的一线治疗),特别是特定运动训练模式对睡眠的影响的证据有限。本研究旨在探讨两种基于运动的干预措施(一般力量和调节[GSC]和运动控制和手动治疗[MCMT])对CLBP成人睡眠质量的影响。方法采用两组平行(1:1)随机对照试验。40名患有CLBP的成年人(平均年龄[SD]: 34.7[6.1]岁)被随机分配接受GSC (n=20)或MCMT (n=20),为期6个月。采用匹兹堡睡眠质量指数(PSQI)测量睡眠质量及其子成分(如睡眠障碍、睡眠持续时间)。分析采用意向治疗方法,按时间分组效应采用混合线性效应模型进行评估。结果GSC (PSQI平均变化[95%CI]: -1.58[-2.70, -0.46]点)和MCMT(-1.61[2.79, -0.43]点)均能改善6个月时的睡眠质量,但未发现组间效应(β [95%CI]: 0.03[-1.60, 1.65])。对于睡眠质量子成分,GSC改善了白天功能障碍(-0.33[-0.65,- 0.0.01]),但导致睡眠效率小幅下降(0.06[0.01,0.10])。MCMT改善睡眠障碍(0.31[-0.55,-0.07])。结论GSC和MCMT均能改善睡眠质量,但两者均无明显优势。MCMT组睡眠障碍得到改善,GSC组白天功能障碍得到改善。未来的研究将受益于包括一个真正的控制,客观的睡眠测量,并调查潜在的中介。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信