Adding Brief Pain Science or Ergonomics Messages to Guideline Advice Did Not Increase Feelings of Reassurance in People With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Experiment.

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Giovanni E Ferreira, Joshua R Zadro, Adrian C Traeger, Caitlin P Jones, Courtney A West, Mary O'Keeffe, Hazel Jenkins, James McAuley, Christopher G Maher
{"title":"Adding Brief Pain Science or Ergonomics Messages to Guideline Advice Did Not Increase Feelings of Reassurance in People With Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Experiment.","authors":"Giovanni E Ferreira, Joshua R Zadro, Adrian C Traeger, Caitlin P Jones, Courtney A West, Mary O'Keeffe, Hazel Jenkins, James McAuley, Christopher G Maher","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2023.12090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To investigate the effects of adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice on feelings of reassurance and management intentions among people with acute low back pain (LBP). <b>DESIGN:</b> Three-arm parallel-group randomized experiment. <b>METHODS:</b> We recruited people with acute LBP (pain for ≤6 weeks) to participate in an online experiment. Participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: guideline advice alone or guideline advice with the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages. The intervention was delivered via prerecorded videos in all 3 groups. Coprimary outcomes were reassurance that (1) no serious condition is causing LBP and (2) continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes were perceived risk of developing chronic pain, management intentions (bed rest, see a health professional, see a specialist, and imaging), credibility, and relevance of the advice in addressing the participant's concerns. <b>RESULTS:</b> Two thousand two hundred ninety-seven responses (99.3% of 2,313 randomized) were analyzed. Adding brief pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not change reassurance that LBP was not caused by serious disease. The addition of ergonomics advice provided worse reassurance that it is safe to continue with daily activities compared to guideline advice (mean difference [MD], -0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.53). There was no difference between groups on management intentions. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> Adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not increase reassurance or change management intentions in people with acute LBP. Ergonomics messages may lead to reduced feelings of reassurance. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12)1-11. Epub 26 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12090</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"769-779"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2023.12090","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice on feelings of reassurance and management intentions among people with acute low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Three-arm parallel-group randomized experiment. METHODS: We recruited people with acute LBP (pain for ≤6 weeks) to participate in an online experiment. Participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: guideline advice alone or guideline advice with the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages. The intervention was delivered via prerecorded videos in all 3 groups. Coprimary outcomes were reassurance that (1) no serious condition is causing LBP and (2) continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes were perceived risk of developing chronic pain, management intentions (bed rest, see a health professional, see a specialist, and imaging), credibility, and relevance of the advice in addressing the participant's concerns. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred ninety-seven responses (99.3% of 2,313 randomized) were analyzed. Adding brief pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not change reassurance that LBP was not caused by serious disease. The addition of ergonomics advice provided worse reassurance that it is safe to continue with daily activities compared to guideline advice (mean difference [MD], -0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.53). There was no difference between groups on management intentions. CONCLUSION: Adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not increase reassurance or change management intentions in people with acute LBP. Ergonomics messages may lead to reduced feelings of reassurance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12)1-11. Epub 26 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12090.

在指南建议中添加简短的疼痛科学或人体工程学信息并不能增加急性腰痛患者的安心感:一项随机实验。
目的:研究在指南建议中添加疼痛科学或工效学信息对急性腰痛(LBP)患者的安心感和管理意图的影响。设计:三臂平行组随机实验。方法:我们招募了急性LBP(疼痛≤6周)患者参加在线实验。参与者以1:1:1的比例随机分为三组:单独的指南建议,或添加简短疼痛科学或人体工程学信息的指南建议。三组患者均通过预先录制的视频进行干预。共同的主要结果是保证(i)没有严重的情况导致LBP,以及(ii)继续进行日常活动是安全的。次要结果是发展为慢性疼痛的感知风险、管理意图(卧床休息、看健康专业人员、看专家和成像)、可信度以及解决参与者担忧的建议的相关性。结果:分析了2297个应答(2313个随机分组中的99.3%)。在指南建议中添加简短的疼痛科学或人体工程学信息并没有改变LBP不是由严重疾病引起的保证。与指南建议相比,添加人体工程学建议提供了更差的保证,即继续进行日常活动是安全的(平均差异[MD]:-0.33,95%CI 0.13至0.53)。两组在管理意图方面没有差异。结论:在指南建议中加入疼痛科学或工效学信息并不能增加急性LBP患者的安全感或改变管理意图。符合人体工程学的信息可能会减少安心感。
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
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® (JOSPT®) publishes scientifically rigorous, clinically relevant content for physical therapists and others in the health care community to advance musculoskeletal and sports-related practice globally. To this end, JOSPT features the latest evidence-based research and clinical cases in musculoskeletal health, injury, and rehabilitation, including physical therapy, orthopaedics, sports medicine, and biomechanics. With an impact factor of 3.090, JOSPT is among the highest ranked physical therapy journals in Clarivate Analytics''s Journal Citation Reports, Science Edition (2017). JOSPT stands eighth of 65 journals in the category of rehabilitation, twelfth of 77 journals in orthopedics, and fourteenth of 81 journals in sport sciences. JOSPT''s 5-year impact factor is 4.061.
×
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