Location of Repository

Design considerations in a clinical trial of a cognitive behavioural intervention for the management of low back pain in primary care : Back Skills Training Trial

By S. E. (Sallie E.) Lamb, Ranjit Lall, Zara Hansen, Emma J. Withers, Frances Griffiths, Martin Underwood, Julie (Julie Helen) Barlow and Ala Szczepura

Abstract

Background\ud Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem. Risk factors for the development and persistence of LBP include physical and psychological factors. However, most research activity has focused on physical solutions including manipulation, exercise training and activity promotion.\ud \ud Methods/Design\ud This randomised controlled trial will establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group programme, based on cognitive behavioural principles, for the management of sub-acute and chronic LBP in primary care. Our primary outcomes are disease specific measures of pain and function. Secondary outcomes include back beliefs, generic health related quality of life and resource use. All outcomes are measured over 12 months. Participants randomised to the intervention arm are invited to attend up to six weekly sessions each of 90 minutes; each group has 6–8 participants. A parallel qualitative study will aid the evaluation of the intervention.\ud \ud Discussion\ud In this paper we describe the rationale and design of a randomised evaluation of a group based cognitive behavioural intervention for low back pain.\ud \u

Topics: R1, BF
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd.
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:563

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2001). A cognitive-behavioural group intervention as prevention for persistent neck and back pain in a nonpatient population: a randomized controlled trial. Pain doi
  2. (2000). A: The economic burden of back pain in the UK. doi
  3. (1994). Acute low back problems in adults. doi
  4. (2000). Andersson T: Can chronic disability be prevented? Spine doi
  5. (2005). Assendelft WJ: Behavioural treatment for chronic low back pain (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev doi
  6. (2005). Assendelft WJ: Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev doi
  7. (2000). CC: A randomised controlled study of the Arthritis Self-management programme in the UK. Health Educ Res
  8. (2001). Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison. Spine doi
  9. (1994). Clinical Standards Advisory Group: The epidemiology and costs of LBP.
  10. (2000). Council London: A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health.
  11. (2005). Croft PR: Classification of low back pain in primary care: using 'bothersomeness' to identify the most severe cases. Spine doi
  12. (1995). Economics in sample size determination for clinical trials. QJM
  13. (1999). Eek H: Chronic low back pain: what does cognitive coping skills training add to operant behavioural treatment? Results of a randomised clinical trial. doi
  14. (2001). Farrin AJ: 'Responsiveness of generic and specific measures of health outcome in low back pain.'. Spine doi
  15. (2001). G: Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess doi
  16. (1999). Hutchinson A: Low back pain evidence review. London: Royal College of General Practitioners; doi
  17. (2003). In collaboration with the United Kingdom Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation Trial, Rasch analysis of the Roland disability questionnaire. Spine
  18. (2001). Incapacity benefit paid for back pain. In Society for back pain research annual general meeting Society for Back Pain Research, The Clifton Pavilion,
  19. (1999). Information and advice to patients with back pain can have a positive effect. A randomized controlled trial of a novel educational booklet in primary care. Spine doi
  20. (2000). Lorig K: 'A randomized trial of a cognitive-behavioural program for enhancing back pain self care in a primary care setting.'. doi
  21. (1992). Low Back Pain in eight areas of Britain. doi
  22. (2006). Malmivaara A: Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review. doi
  23. (1998). MC: Uncertainty in decision models analysing cost-effectiveness: the joint distribution of incremental costs and effectiveness evaluated with a nonparametric bootstrap method. Medical Decision Making doi
  24. (2006). Measuring troublesomeness of chronic pain by location. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders doi
  25. (2001). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review. BMJ doi
  26. (1979). Noordenbos W: Pain terms: a list with definitions and notes on usage. Pain
  27. (1988). Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardised use. Spine doi
  28. (1999). Predicting who develops chronic low back pain in primary care: a prospective study.'. BMJ doi
  29. (1981). Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. doi
  30. (1983). RW: A study of the natural history of back pain 1: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain. Spine doi
  31. (2004). S: Randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy treatments versus advice for low back pain: Clinical effectiveness and cost.
  32. (2005). Self reports of health care utilisation: diary or questionnaire? Int J Technology Assessment in Health Care (ISTAHC) doi
  33. (1998). Silman AJ: 'Outcome of low back pain in general practice: a prospective study.'. BMJ doi
  34. (1999). Simple sample size calculations for cluster randomised trials. doi
  35. (2001). Stepped care for LBP. Arch Intern Med
  36. (2005). The Back Book 5th Impression. Norwich: The Stationery Office;
  37. (1994). The prevalence of back pain in Great Britain Office of Population Censuses and Survey. Social Surveys Division London HMSO;
  38. (2000). The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine doi
  39. (2002). The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, An updated literature review. doi
  40. (2004). Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for Health Research Sage.
  41. (2002). trial team: (UK BEAM) trial – national randomised trial of physical treatments for back pain in primary care: findings of feasibility study and definitive protocol. Submitted Controlled Clinical trials doi
  42. (1996). Unit costs of health and social care. PSSRU,
  43. (2000). Vautravers P: The role of activity in the therapeutic management of back pain. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.