A randomized controlled trial of tai chi for long-term low back pain (TAI CHI): Study rationale, design, and methods

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain persisting for longer than 3 months is a common and costly condition for which many current treatments have low-moderate success rates at best. Exercise is among the more successful treatments for this condition, however, the type and dosage of exercise that elicits the best results is not clearly defined. Tai chi is a gentle form of low intensity exercise that uses controlled movements in combination with relaxation techniques and is currently used as a safe form of exercise for people suffering from other chronic pain conditions such as arthritis. To date, there has been no scientific evaluation of tai chi as an intervention for people with back pain. Thus the aim of this study will be to examine the effects of a tai chi exercise program on pain and disability in people with long-term low back pain.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>The study will recruit 160 healthy individuals from the community setting to be randomised to either a tai chi intervention group or a wait-list control group. Individuals in the tai chi group will attend 2 tai chi sessions (40 minutes)/week for 8 weeks followed by 1 tai chi session/week for 2 weeks. The wait-list control will continue their usual health care practices and have the opportunity to participate in the tai chi program once they have completed the follow-up assessments. The primary outcome will be bothersomeness of back symptoms measured with a 0–10 numerical rating scale. Secondary outcomes include, self-reports of pain-related disability, health-related quality of life and global perceived effect of treatment. Statistical analysis of primary and secondary outcomes will be based on the intention to treat principle. Linear mixed models will be used to test for the effect of treatment on outcome at 10 weeks follow up. This trial has received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. HREC Approval No.10452</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will be the first trial in this area and the information on its effectiveness will allow patients, clinicians and treatment funders to make informed choices regarding this treatment.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>This trial has been registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. <b>ACTRN12608000270314</b></p

Efficacy of manipulation for non-specific neck pain of recent onset: design of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Manipulation is a common treatment for non-specific neck pain. Neck manipulation, unlike gentler forms of manual therapy such as mobilisation, is associated with a small risk of serious neurovascular injury and can result in stroke or death. It is thought however, that neck manipulation provides better results than mobilisation where clinically indicated. There is long standing and vigorous debate both within and between the professions that use neck manipulation as well as the wider scientific community as to whether neck manipulation potentially does more harm than good. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether neck manipulation provides more rapid resolution of an episode of neck pain than mobilisation. METHODS/DESIGN: 182 participants with acute and sub-acute neck pain will be recruited from physiotherapy, chiropractic and osteopathy practices in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either manipulation or mobilisation. Randomisation will occur after the treating practitioner decides that manipulation is an appropriate treatment for the individual participant. Both groups will receive at least 4 treatments over 2 weeks. The primary outcome is number of days taken to recover from the episode of neck pain. Cox regression will be used to compare survival curves for time to recovery for the manipulation and mobilisation treatment groups. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of neck manipulation and neck mobilisation for acute and subacute neck pain

Household and community socioeconomic and environmental determinants of child nutritional status in Cameroon

BACKGROUND: Undernutrition is a leading cause of child mortality in developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. We examine the household and community level socioeconomic and environmental factors associated with child nutritional status in Cameroon, and changes in the effects of these factors during the 1990s economic crisis. We further consider age-specific effects of household economic status on child nutrition. METHODS: Child nutritional status was measured by weight-for-age (WAZ) and height-for-age (HAZ) z-scores. Data were from Demographic and Health Surveys conducted in 1991 and 1998. We used analysis of variance to assess the bivariate association between the explanatory factors and nutritional status. Multivariate, multilevel analyses were undertaken to estimate the net effects of both household and community factors. RESULTS: Average WAZ and HAZ declined respectively from -0.70 standard deviations (SD), i.e. 0.70 SD below the reference median, to -0.83 SD (p = 0.006) and from -1.03 SD to -1.14 SD (p = 0.026) between 1991 and 1998. These declines occurred mostly among boys, children over 12 months of age, and those of low socioeconomic status. Maternal education and maternal health seeking behavior were associated with better child nutrition. Household economic status had an overall positive effect that increased during the crisis, but it had little effect in children under 6 months of age. Improved household (water, sanitation and cooking fuel) and community environment had positive effects. Children living in the driest regions of the country were consistently worst off, and those in the largest cities were best off. CONCLUSION: Both household and community factors have significant impact on child health in Cameroon. Understanding these relationships can facilitate design of age- and community-specific intervention programs

Motor control or graded activity exercises for chronic low back pain? A randomised controlled trial

Background: Chronic low back pain remains a major health problem in Australia and around the world. Unfortunately the majority of treatments for this condition produce small effects because not all patients respond to each treatment. It appears that only 25-50% of patients respond to exercise. The two most popular types of exercise for low back pain are graded activity and motor control exercises. At present however, there are no guidelines to help clinicians select the best treatment for a patient. As a result, time and money are wasted on treatments which ultimately fail to help the patient

Assessment of social psychological determinants of satisfaction with childbirth in a cross-national perspective

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The fulfilment of expectations, labour pain, personal control and self-efficacy determine the postpartum evaluation of birth. However, researchers have seldom considered the multiple determinants in one analysis. To explore to what extent the results can be generalised between countries, we analyse data of Belgian and Dutch women. Although Belgium and the Netherlands share the same language, geography and political system and have a common history, their health care systems diverge. The Belgian maternity care system corresponds to the ideal type of the medical model, whereas the Dutch system approaches the midwifery model. In this paper we examine multiple determinants, the fulfilment of expectations, labour pain, personal control and self-efficacy, for their association with satisfaction with childbirth in a cross-national perspective.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two questionnaires were filled out by 605 women, one at 30 weeks of pregnancy and one within the first 2 weeks after childbirth either at home or in a hospital. Of these, 560 questionnaires were usable for analysis. Women were invited to participate in the study by independent midwives and obstetricians during antenatal visits in 2004–2005. Satisfaction with childbirth was measured by the Mackey Satisfaction with Childbirth Rating Scale, which takes into account the multidimensional nature of the concept. Labour pain was rated retrospectively using Visual Analogue Scales. Personal control was assessed with the Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire and Pearlin and Schooler's mastery scale. A hierarchical linear analysis was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Satisfaction with childbirth benefited most consistently from the fulfilment of expectations. In addition, the experience of personal control buffered the lowering impact of labour pain. Women with high self-efficacy showed more satisfaction with self-, midwife- and physician-related aspects of the birth experience.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings focus the attention toward personal control, self-efficacy and expectations about childbirth. This study confirms the multidimensionality of childbirth satisfaction and demonstrates that different factors predict the various dimensions of satisfaction. The model applies to both Belgian and Dutch women. Cross-national comparative research should further assess the dependence of the determinants of childbirth satisfaction on the organisation of maternity care.</p

Pain acceptance and personal control in pain relief in two maternity care models: a cross-national comparison of Belgium and the Netherlands

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A cross-national comparison of Belgian and Dutch childbearing women allows us to gain insight into the relative importance of pain acceptance and personal control in pain relief in 2 maternity care models. Although Belgium and the Netherlands are neighbouring countries sharing the same language, political system and geography, they are characterised by a different organisation of health care, particularly in maternity care. In Belgium the medical risks of childbirth are emphasised but neutralised by a strong belief in the merits of the medical model. Labour pain is perceived as a needless inconvenience easily resolved by means of pain medication. In the Netherlands the midwifery model of care defines childbirth as a normal physiological process and family event. Labour pain is perceived as an ally in the birth process.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Women were invited to participate in the study by independent midwives and obstetricians during antenatal visits in 2004-2005. Two questionnaires were filled out by 611 women, one at 30 weeks of pregnancy and one within the first 2 weeks after childbirth either at home or in a hospital. However, only women having a hospital birth without obstetric intervention (N = 327) were included in this analysis. A logistic regression analysis has been performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Labour pain acceptance and personal control in pain relief render pain medication use during labour less likely, especially if they occur together. Apart from this general result, we also find large country differences. Dutch women with a normal hospital birth are six times less likely to use pain medication during labour, compared to their Belgian counterparts. This country difference cannot be explained by labour pain acceptance, since - in contrast to our working hypothesis - Dutch and Belgian women giving birth in a hospital setting are characterised by a similar labour pain acceptance. Our findings suggest that personal control in pain relief can partially explain the country differences in coping with labour pain. For Dutch women we find that the use of pain medication is lowest if women experience control over the reception of pain medication and have a positive attitude towards labour pain. In Belgium however, not personal control over the use of pain relief predicts the use of pain medication, but negative attitudes towards labour.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Apart from individual level determinants, such as length of labour or pain acceptance, our findings suggest that the maternity care context is of major importance in the study of the management of labour pain. The pain medication use in Belgian hospital maternity care is high and is very sensitive to negative attitudes towards labour pain. In the Netherlands, on the contrary, pain medication use is already low. This can partially be explained by a low degree of personal control in pain relief, especially when co-occurring with positive pain attitudes.</p

Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients

BACKGROUND: The choice of an evaluative instrument has been hampered by the lack of head-to-head comparisons of responsiveness and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in subpopulations of low back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to concurrently compare responsiveness and MCID for commonly used pain scales and functional instruments in four subpopulations of LBP patients. METHODS: The Danish versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 23-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), the physical function and bodily pain subscales of the SF36, the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) and a numerical rating scale for pain (0–10) were completed by 191 patients from the primary and secondary sectors of the Danish health care system. Clinical change was estimated using a 7-point transition question and a numeric rating scale for importance. Responsiveness was operationalised using standardardised response mean (SRM), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), and cut-point analysis. Subpopulation analyses were carried out on primary and secondary sector patients with LBP only or leg pain +/- LBP. RESULTS: RMQ was the most responsive instrument in primary and secondary sector patients with LBP only (SRM = 0.5–1.4; ROC = 0.75–0.94) whereas ODI and RMQ showed almost similar responsiveness in primary and secondary sector patients with leg pain (ODI: SRM = 0.4–0.9; ROC = 0.76–0.89; RMQ: SRM = 0.3–0.9; ROC = 0.72–0.88). In improved patients, the RMQ was more responsive in primary and secondary sector patients and LBP only patients (SRM = 1.3–1.7) while the RMQ and ODI were equally responsive in leg pain patients (SRM = 1.3 and 1.2 respectively). All pain measures demonstrated almost equal responsiveness. The MCID increased with increasing baseline score in primary sector and LBP only patients but was only marginally affected by patient entry point and pain location. The MCID of the percentage change score remained constant for the ODI (51%) and RMQ (38%) specifically and differed in the subpopulations. CONCLUSION: RMQ is suitable for measuring change in LBP only patients and both ODI and RMQ are suitable for leg pain patients irrespectively of patient entry point. The MCID is baseline score dependent but only in certain subpopulations. Relative change measured using the ODI and RMQ was not affected by baseline score when patients quantified an important improvement