How do people with chronic low back pain perceive specific and general exercise? A mixed methods survey.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1111/papr.13354
A Natoli, M D Jones, V Long, B Mouatt, E D Walker, M T Gibbs
{"title":"How do people with chronic low back pain perceive specific and general exercise? A mixed methods survey.","authors":"A Natoli, M D Jones, V Long, B Mouatt, E D Walker, M T Gibbs","doi":"10.1111/papr.13354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Exercise prescriptions for chronic low back pain (CLBP) often utilize reductionistic, trunk-focused exercise aimed at addressing proposed pain mechanisms. It is unknown if the use of these trunk-focused exercises imply beliefs to people with CLBP about the rationale for their use (e.g., etiology), even without concurrent biomedical narratives. This study aimed to explore people's perceptions of specific and general exercise without an accompanying narrative when experiencing CLBP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An anonymous online survey was distributed. Mixed methods were utilized for analysis. Six-point Likert scales categorized people's beliefs about individual exercises. Open-ended questions were used to gather further beliefs which were then coded into themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>People with CLBP perceived specific exercise as more beneficial than general exercise. Eight themes and five subthemes were defined. A high volume of positive beliefs were centered around strengthening the low back and abdominal musculature, emphasizing the importance of correct technique. Negative beliefs were held against spinal flexion and external load. Both positive and negative beliefs were underpinned by spinal/pelvic stability being important as well as certain exercises being achievable or not.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that people with CLBP consider specific exercises to be more beneficial than general exercises for CLBP. Specific exercises irrespective of an accompanying narrative can imply meaning about the intent of an exercise. Understanding this requires practitioners to be mindful when prescribing and communicating exercise.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13354","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Exercise prescriptions for chronic low back pain (CLBP) often utilize reductionistic, trunk-focused exercise aimed at addressing proposed pain mechanisms. It is unknown if the use of these trunk-focused exercises imply beliefs to people with CLBP about the rationale for their use (e.g., etiology), even without concurrent biomedical narratives. This study aimed to explore people's perceptions of specific and general exercise without an accompanying narrative when experiencing CLBP.

Methods: An anonymous online survey was distributed. Mixed methods were utilized for analysis. Six-point Likert scales categorized people's beliefs about individual exercises. Open-ended questions were used to gather further beliefs which were then coded into themes.

Results: People with CLBP perceived specific exercise as more beneficial than general exercise. Eight themes and five subthemes were defined. A high volume of positive beliefs were centered around strengthening the low back and abdominal musculature, emphasizing the importance of correct technique. Negative beliefs were held against spinal flexion and external load. Both positive and negative beliefs were underpinned by spinal/pelvic stability being important as well as certain exercises being achievable or not.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that people with CLBP consider specific exercises to be more beneficial than general exercises for CLBP. Specific exercises irrespective of an accompanying narrative can imply meaning about the intent of an exercise. Understanding this requires practitioners to be mindful when prescribing and communicating exercise.

慢性腰背痛患者如何看待特定运动和一般运动?混合方法调查。
目的:针对慢性腰背痛(CLBP)的运动处方通常采用简化的、以躯干为重点的运动,旨在解决所提出的疼痛机制。目前尚不清楚使用这些以躯干为重点的运动是否意味着慢性腰背痛患者对其使用理由(如病因学)的信念,即使没有同时进行的生物医学叙述也是如此。本研究旨在探讨在没有相关叙述的情况下,CLBP 患者对特定运动和一般运动的看法:方法:发放匿名在线调查问卷。采用混合方法进行分析。六点李克特量表对人们对个别运动的看法进行了分类。使用开放式问题收集更多信念,然后将其编码为主题:结果:CLBP 患者认为特定运动比一般运动更有益。确定了八个主题和五个次主题。大量积极信念都围绕着增强腰部和腹部肌肉组织,强调正确技巧的重要性。消极信念则针对脊柱弯曲和外部负荷。脊柱/骨盆稳定性的重要性以及某些练习是否可以实现都是积极和消极信念的基础:本研究表明,慢性脊柱炎患者认为针对慢性脊柱炎的特定运动比一般运动更有益。无论是否有附带的说明,特定运动都会暗示运动的意图。要理解这一点,从业人员在开具运动处方和传达运动信息时就必须注意这一点。
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
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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