The comparative effectiveness of a multimodal program versus exercise alone for the secondary prevention of chronic low back pain and disability.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine whether a multimodal, secondary prevention program (MP) is superior to a general physical exercise program (EP) in influencing the process leading to chronic low back pain (LBP) in nurses with a history of back pain. DESIGN: The study was conducted as a randomized controlled parallel-group trial. SETTING: The interventions were performed in a single center at the Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Munich in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 235 nurses from 14 nearby hospitals and nursing homes who experienced at least one episode of back pain during the previous 2 years were invited into the study. Of these, 183 nurses were enrolled and 169 (83 in the MP and 86 in the EP) qualified for the intent-to-treat analysis. INTERVENTIONS: The EP consisted of 11 group sessions, each lasting 1 hour. After introductory sessions, subsequent sessions included general physical strengthening and stretching exercises as well as instructions for a home-training program. The MP consisted of 17 group sessions of 1.75 hours and one individual session of 45 minutes. In addition to the full EP, the MP included 5 psychological units, 7 segmental stabilization exercises units, and 8 ergonomic and workplace-specific units. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary study end-point variable was pain interference, and the secondary study end-point variables were pain intensity and functioning as measured with the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory and the Short Form-36, respectively. These study end-point variables were defined a priori. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Small-to-moderate effects were observed in both intervention programs across all study end-point variables. For pain interference, the effect size at 12 months after intervention was 0.58 in the MP and 0.47 in the EP. CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal program is not superior to a general exercise program in influencing the process leading to chronic LBP in a population of nurses with a history of pain. The most likely explanation is a common psychological mechanism leading to improved pain interference that is irrespective of the program used. Considering the lower resources of the general exercise program, the expense for a multimodal program is not justified for the secondary prevention of LBP and disability.

Factors explaining improvement of isoinertial lifting-capacity.

INTRODUCTION: A clearer understanding of the factors involved in improving lifting-capacity may assist professional health workers to enhance patient's functioning and minimize chronic back pain. However, few studies have examined this association. This study is part of a trial comparing two secondary back pain prevention programs. It aims to identify anthropometric, physical, psychic and demographic baseline variables (baseline model), and over time change variables (comprehensive model), which explain the alteration of lumbar isoinertial lifting-capacity, from baseline to post-treatment. METHODS: The association between these variables' baseline- or change values, and the change of lifting-capacity (PILE-test) over time, were analyzed with multiple regression analyses. Potential variables for the regression analyses were identified within a standardized stepwise selection process. RESULTS: In the baseline model, 35.2% of the variance in lifting-capacity was mainly explained by a low baseline score of lumbar lifting-capacity, high body weight and gender. In the comprehensive model, 41.9% could be mainly explained by the same baseline variables, an increase of perceived exertion during the PILE-tests and decrease of fear-avoidance caused by work. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that treatments to improve lifting-capacity in individuals with mild low back pain should particularly address the reduction of fear-avoidance beliefs. Although strong conclusions cannot be drawn from this study due to methodological limitations, they may be helpful to assign patients to appropriate and most beneficial treatment programs, as well as to develop specific programs. Fear-reduction may be an important target for early interventions in regard to functional capacity.