Moderators and Nonspecific Predictors of Treatment Benefits in a Randomized Trial of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy vs Usual Care for Chronic Low Back Pain.

Both mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) are effective for chronic low back pain (CLBP), but little is known regarding who might benefit more from one than the other. Using data from a randomized trial comparing MBSR, CBT, and usual care (UC) for adults aged 20 to 70 years with CLBP (N = 297), we examined baseline characteristics that moderated treatment effects or were associated with improvement regardless of treatment. Outcomes included 8-week function (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire), pain bothersomeness (0-10 numerical rating scale), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8). There were differences in the effects of CBT versus MBSR on pain based on participant gender (P = .03) and baseline depressive symptoms (P = .01), but the only statistically significant moderator after Bonferroni correction was the nonjudging dimension of mindfulness. Scores on this measure moderated the effects of CBT versus MBSR on both function (P = .001) and pain (P = .04). Pain control beliefs (P <.001) and lower anxiety (P < .001) predicted improvement regardless of treatment. Replication of these findings is needed to guide treatment decision-making for CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial and analysis plan were preregistered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01467843). PERSPECTIVE: Although few potential moderators and nonspecific predictors of benefits from CBT or MBSR for CLBP were statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons, these findings suggest potentially fruitful directions for confirmatory research while providing reassurance that patients could reasonably expect to benefit from either treatment.

Time to Align Coverage with Evidence for Treatment of Back Pain.

Despite improved knowledge about the benefits and harms of treatments for chronic back pain in the past several decades, there is a large and consequential mismatch between treatments found safe and effective and those routinely covered by health insurance. As a result, care for back pain has, if anything, deteriorated in recent decades-expenses are higher, harms are greater, and use of ineffective treatments is more common. Deficiencies in health care delivery processes and payment models are centrally involved in the failure to improve care for back pain. A key step for accelerating progress is changing insurance coverage policies to facilitate use of the safest and most helpful approaches while discouraging riskier and less effective treatments. Relatively simple changes in reimbursement policies may minimize harm and improve quality of life for many patients with chronic back and similar pain syndromes. Such changes might also reduce health care expenditures because the costs of treatments currently covered by insurance and their associated harms may well outweigh the costs of the relatively safe and effective treatments recommended by current guidelines but poorly covered by insurance. There is no justification for continuing the status quo-patients and clinicians deserve better.

Clinical Policy Recommendations from the VHA State-of-the-Art Conference on Non-Pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

As a large national healthcare system, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is ideally suited to build on its work to date and develop a safe, evidence-based, and comprehensive approach to the care of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions that de-emphasizes opioid use and emphasizes non-pharmacological strategies. The VHA Office of Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) held a state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference titled "Non-pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Management" in November 2016. Goals of the conference were (1) to establish consensus on the current state of evidence regarding non-pharmacological approaches to chronic musculoskeletal pain to inform VHA policy in this area and (2) to begin to identify priorities for the future VHA research agenda. Workgroups were established and asked to reach consensus recommendations on clinical and research priorities for the following treatment strategies: psychological/behavioral therapies, exercise/movement therapies, manual therapies, and models for delivering multimodal pain care. Participants in the SOTA identified nine non-pharmacological therapies with sufficient evidence to be implemented across the VHA system as part of pain care. Participants further recommended that effective integration of these non-pharmacological approaches across the VHA and especially into VHA primary care, pain care, and mental health settings should be a priority, and that these treatments should be offered early in the course of pain treatment and delivered in a team-based, multimodal treatment setting concurrently with active self-care and self-management approaches. In addition, we recommend that VHA leadership and policy makers systematically address the barriers to implementation of these approaches by expanding opportunities for clinician and veteran education on the effectiveness of these strategies; supporting and funding further research to determine optimal dosage, duration, sequencing, combination, and frequency of treatment; emphasizing multimodal care with rigorous evaluation grounded in team-based approaches to test integrated models of delivery and stepped-care approaches; and working to address socioeconomic and cultural barriers to veterans' access to non-pharmacological approaches.

Yoga for the management of pain and sleep in rheumatoid arthritis: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to determine the feasibility of a relaxation-based yoga intervention for rheumatoid arthritis, designed and reported in accordance with Delphi recommendations for yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a hospital database, and randomized to either eight weekly 75-min yoga classes or a usual care control. Feasibility was determined by recruitment rates, retention, protocol adherence, participant satisfaction and adverse events. Secondary physical and psychosocial outcomes were assessed using self-reported questionnaires at baseline (week 0), week 9 (primary time point) and week 12 (follow-up). RESULTS: Over a 3-month period, 26 participants with mild pain, mild to moderate functional disability and moderate disease activity were recruited into the study (25% recruitment rate). Retention rates were 100% for yoga participants and 92% for usual care participants at both weeks 9 and 12. Protocol adherence and participant satisfaction were high. Yoga participants attended a median of seven classes; additionally, seven of the yoga participants (54%) reported continuing yoga at home during the follow-up period. No serious adverse events were related to the study. Secondary outcomes showed no group effects of yoga compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: A relaxation-based yoga programme was found to be feasible and safe for participants with rheumatoid arthritis-related pain and functional disability. Adverse events were minor, and not unexpected from an intervention including physical components. This pilot provides a framework for larger intervention studies, and supports further exploration of yoga as a complex intervention to assist with the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Cost-effectiveness of Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction Versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) versus usual care alone (UC) for chronic low back pain (CLBP). OBJECTIVE: To determine 1-year cost-effectiveness of CBT and MBSR compared to 33 UC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CLBP is expensive in terms of healthcare costs and lost productivity. Mind-body interventions have been found effective for back pain, but their cost-effectiveness is unexplored. METHODS: A total of 342 adults in an integrated healthcare system with CLBP were randomized to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or UC (n = 113). CBT and MBSR were offered in 8-weekly 2-hour group sessions. Cost-effectiveness from the societal perspective was calculated as the incremental sum of healthcare costs and productivity losses over change in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The payer perspective only included healthcare costs. This economic evaluation was limited to the 301 health plan members enrolled ≥180 days in the years pre-and postrandomization. RESULTS: Compared with UC, the mean incremental cost per participant to society of CBT was $125 (95% confidence interval, CI: -4103, 4307) and of MBSR was -$724 (CI: -4386, 2778)-that is, a net saving of $724. Incremental costs per participant to the health plan were $495 for CBT over UC and -$982 for MBSR, and incremental back-related costs per participant were $984 for CBT over UC and -$127 for MBSR. These costs (and cost savings) were associated with statistically significant gains in QALYs over UC: 0.041 (0.015, 0.067) for CBT and 0.034 (0.008, 0.060) for MBSR. CONCLUSION: In this setting CBT and MBSR have high probabilities of being cost-effective, and MBSR may be cost saving, as compared with UC for adults with CLBP. These findings suggest that MBSR, and to a lesser extent CBT, may provide cost-effective treatment for CLBP for payers and society. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Mindfulness-based stress reduction and cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic low back pain: similar effects on mindfulness, catastrophizing, self-efficacy, and acceptance in a randomized controlled trial.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is believed to improve chronic pain problems by decreasing patient catastrophizing and increasing patient self-efficacy for managing pain. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is believed to benefit patients with chronic pain by increasing mindfulness and pain acceptance. However, little is known about how these therapeutic mechanism variables relate to each other or whether they are differentially impacted by MBSR vs CBT. In a randomized controlled trial comparing MBSR, CBT, and usual care (UC) for adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain (N = 342), we examined (1) baseline relationships among measures of catastrophizing, self-efficacy, acceptance, and mindfulness and (2) changes on these measures in the 3 treatment groups. At baseline, catastrophizing was associated negatively with self-efficacy, acceptance, and 3 aspects of mindfulness (nonreactivity, nonjudging, and acting with awareness; all P values <0.01). Acceptance was associated positively with self-efficacy (P < 0.01) and mindfulness (P values <0.05) measures. Catastrophizing decreased slightly more posttreatment with MBSR than with CBT or UC (omnibus P = 0.002). Both treatments were effective compared with UC in decreasing catastrophizing at 52 weeks (omnibus P = 0.001). In both the entire randomized sample and the subsample of participants who attended ≥6 of the 8 MBSR or CBT sessions, differences between MBSR and CBT at up to 52 weeks were few, small in size, and of questionable clinical meaningfulness. The results indicate overlap across measures of catastrophizing, self-efficacy, acceptance, and mindfulness and similar effects of MBSR and CBT on these measures among individuals with chronic low back pain.

Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). INTERVENTIONS: CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P = .04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P = .01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

Randomized clinical trial assessing whether additional massage treatments for chronic neck pain improve 12- and 26-week outcomes.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: This is the first study to systematically evaluate the value of a longer treatment period for massage. We provide a framework of how to conceptualize an optimal dose in this challenging setting of nonpharmacologic treatments. PURPOSE: The aim was to determine the optimal dose of massage for neck pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Two-phase randomized trial for persons with chronic nonspecific neck pain. Primary randomization to one of five groups receiving 4 weeks of massage (30 minutes 2x/or 3x/wk or 60 minutes 1x, 2x, or 3x/wk). Booster randomization of participants to receive an additional six massages, 60 minutes 1x/wk, or no additional massage. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 179 participants from Group Health and the general population of Seattle, WA, USA recruited between June 2010 and August 2011 were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes self-reported neck-related dysfunction (Neck Disability Index) and pain (0-10 scale) were assessed at baseline, 12, and 26 weeks. Clinically meaningful improvement was defined as greater than or equal to 5-point decrease in dysfunction and greater than or equal to 30% decrease in pain from baseline. METHODS: Clinically meaningful improvement for each primary outcome with both follow-up times was analyzed using adjusted modified Poisson generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Secondary analyses for the continuous outcomes used linear GEEs. RESULTS: There were no observed differences by primary treatment group at 12 or 26 weeks. Those receiving booster dose had improvements in both dysfunction and pain at 12 weeks (dysfunction: relative risk [RR]=1.56 [1.08-2.25], p=.018; pain: RR=1.25 [0.98-1.61], p=.077), but those were nonsignificant at 26 weeks (dysfunction: RR=1.22 [0.85-1.74]; pain: RR=1.09 [0.82-1.43]). Subgroup analysis by primary and booster treatments found the booster dose only effective among those initially randomized to one of the 60-minute massage groups. CONCLUSIONS: "Booster" doses for those initially receiving 60 minutes of massage should be incorporated into future trials of massage for chronic neck pain.

A qualitative study of changes in expectations over time among patients with chronic low back pain seeking four CAM therapies.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between patient expectations about a treatment and the treatment outcomes, particularly for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies, is not well understood. Using qualitative data from a larger study to develop a valid expectancy questionnaire for use with participants starting new CAM therapies, we examined how participants' expectations of treatment changed over the course of a therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 64 participants initiating one of four CAM therapies (yoga, chiropractic, acupuncture, massage) for chronic low back pain. Participants just starting treatment were interviewed up to three times over a period of 3 months. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a qualitative mixed methods approach incorporating immersion/crystallization and matrix analysis for a decontexualization and recontextualization approach to understand changes in thematic emphasis over time. RESULTS: Pre-treatment expectations consisted of conjecture about whether or not the CAM therapy could relieve pain and improve participation in meaningful activities. Expectations tended to shift over the course of treatment to be more inclusive of broader lifestyle factors, the need for long-term pain management strategies and attention to long-term quality of life and wellness. Although a shift toward greater acceptance of chronic pain and the need for strategies to keep pain from flaring was observed across participants regardless of therapy, participants varied in their assessments of whether increased awareness of the need for ongoing self-care and maintenance strategies was considered a "positive outcome". Regardless of how participants evaluated the outcome of treatment, participants from all four therapies reported increased awareness, acceptance of the chronic nature of pain, and attention to the need to take responsibility for their own health. CONCLUSIONS: The shift in treatment expectations to greater acceptance of pain and the need for continued self-care suggests that future research should explore how CAM practitioners can capitalize on these shifts to encourage feelings of empowerment rather than disappointment surrounding realizations of the need for continued engagement with self-care.

Components and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the content and reporting details of randomised controlled trials of yoga for musculoskeletal conditions through a systematic review of the literature. DESIGN: Twenty electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. Eligibility criteria were full-text, peer reviewed articles, of RCTs with yoga as a primary intervention, on a population aged 18 years and over, with a clinical diagnosis of a musculoskeletal condition. Data relating to study characteristics, yoga styles, yoga practices, home practice, and reporting were extracted and summarised. RESULTS: Seventeen articles met inclusion criteria, representing five musculoskeletal conditions: low back pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, kyphosis, and fibromyalgia. 15 studies were non-residential, and two were residential. Study duration ranged from 1 to 24 weeks; weekly dosage of yoga ranged from 1 to 56h. Five styles of posture-based Hatha yoga were specified. Intervention content included seven yoga practises: postures, breathing, relaxation, meditation, philosophy, chanting, and cleansing practises. Ten studies either encouraged or requested home practice. Reporting details included class plans, posture lists, and diagrams. Due to insufficient detail regarding delivery of the yoga intervention only eight of the 17 interventions were considered replicable as reported. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of study characteristics and yoga components indicated several areas of homogeneity across studies, suggesting an existing degree of standardisation. However, heterogeneity related to intervention content and reporting impeded determination of intervention content and delivery. Standardisation of content, nomenclature, and reporting details is recommended to enhance protocol transparency, replication, and comparison of intervention effectiveness.

New perspectives on patient expectations of treatment outcomes: results from qualitative interviews with patients seeking complementary and alternative medicine treatments for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Positive patient expectations are often believed to be associated with greater benefits from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. However, clinical studies of CAM treatments for chronic pain have not consistently supported this assumption, possibly because of differences in definitions and measures of expectations. The goal of this qualitative paper is to provide new perspectives on the outcome expectations of patients prior to receiving CAM therapies for chronic low back pain. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 64 individuals receiving massage, chiropractic, acupuncture or yoga for chronic low back pain. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed by a team of experienced qualitative researchers using an immersion/crystallization approach to coding and analysis. RESULTS: Overall, participants' expectations of treatment outcomes tended to cluster in four key domains: pain relief, improved function (including an increase in ability to engage in meaningful activities), improved physical fitness, and improved overall well-being (including mental well-being). Typically, patients had modest expectations for outcomes from treatment. Furthermore, outcome expectations were complex on several levels. First, the concept of expectations overlapped with several related concepts; in particular, hopes. Participants sometimes used expectations and hopes interchangeably and at other times made clear distinctions between these two terms depending on context. A related finding was that participants were cautious about stating that they expected positive outcomes. Finally, participants articulated strong interrelationships among the four key domains and often discussed how changes in one domain might affect other domains. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings contribute to a growing body of literature exploring the role of expectations in patient outcomes. This paper provides important guidance that may help refine the way treatment expectations are studied in the future. In particular, participants' statements indicate that standardized measures of patient expectations should include items that capture hesitancy to articulate overly optimistic outcomes as well as interrelationships among different outcomes.

Effectiveness guidance document (EGD) for Chinese medicine trials: a consensus document.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for more Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) on Chinese medicine (CM) to inform clinical and policy decision-making. This document aims to provide consensus advice for the design of CER trials on CM for researchers. It broadly aims to ensure more adequate design and optimal use of resources in generating evidence for CM to inform stakeholder decision-making. METHODS: The Effectiveness Guidance Document (EGD) development was based on multiple consensus procedures (survey, written Delphi rounds, interactive consensus workshop, international expert review). To balance aspects of internal and external validity, multiple stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, researchers and payers were involved in creating this document. RESULTS: Recommendations were developed for "using available data" and "future clinical studies". The recommendations for future trials focus on randomized trials and cover the following areas: designing CER studies, treatments, expertise and setting, outcomes, study design and statistical analyses, economic evaluation, and publication. CONCLUSION: The present EGD provides the first systematic methodological guidance for future CER trials on CM and can be applied to single or multi-component treatments. While CONSORT statements provide guidelines for reporting studies, EGDs provide recommendations for the design of future studies and can contribute to a more strategic use of limited research resources, as well as greater consistency in trial design.

Establishing key components of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions: a Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests yoga is a safe and effective intervention for the management of physical and psychosocial symptoms associated with musculoskeletal conditions. However, heterogeneity in the components and reporting of clinical yoga trials impedes both the generalization of study results and the replication of study protocols. The aim of this Delphi survey was to address these issues of heterogeneity, by developing a list of recommendations of key components for the design and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: Recognised experts involved in the design, conduct, and teaching of yoga for musculoskeletal conditions were identified from a systematic review, and invited to contribute to the Delphi survey. Forty-one of the 58 experts contacted, representing six countries, agreed to participate. A three-round Delphi was conducted via electronic surveys. Round 1 presented an open-ended question, allowing panellists to individually identify components they considered key to the design and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. Thematic analysis of Round 1 identified items for quantitative rating in Round 2; items not reaching consensus were forwarded to Round 3 for re-rating. RESULTS: Thirty-six panellists (36/41; 88%) completed the three rounds of the Delphi survey. Panellists provided 348 comments to the Round 1 question. These comments were reduced to 49 items, grouped under five themes, for rating in subsequent rounds. A priori group consensus of ≥80% was reached on 28 items related to five themes concerning defining the yoga intervention, types of yoga practices to include in an intervention, delivery of the yoga protocol, domains of outcome measures, and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. Additionally, a priori consensus of ≥50% was reached on five items relating to minimum values for intervention parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus has provided a non-prescriptive reference list for the design and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. It is anticipated future research incorporating the Delphi guidelines will facilitate high quality international research in this field, increase homogeneity of intervention components and parameters, and enhance the comparison and reproducibility of research into the use of yoga for the management of musculoskeletal conditions.

Comparison of complementary and alternative medicine with conventional mind-body therapies for chronic back pain: protocol for the Mind-body Approaches to Pain (MAP) randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The self-reported health and functional status of persons with back pain in the United States have declined in recent years, despite greatly increased medical expenditures due to this problem. Although patient psychosocial factors such as pain-related beliefs, thoughts and coping behaviors have been demonstrated to affect how well patients respond to treatments for back pain, few patients receive treatments that address these factors. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which addresses psychosocial factors, has been found to be effective for back pain, but access to qualified therapists is limited. Another treatment option with potential for addressing psychosocial issues, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), is increasingly available. MBSR has been found to be helpful for various mental and physical conditions, but it has not been well-studied for application with chronic back pain patients. In this trial, we will seek to determine whether MBSR is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for persons with chronic back pain, compare its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with CBT and explore the psychosocial variables that may mediate the effects of MBSR and CBT on patient outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: In this trial, we will randomize 397 adults with nonspecific chronic back pain to CBT, MBSR or usual care arms (99 per group). Both interventions will consist of eight weekly 2-hour group sessions supplemented by home practice. The MBSR protocol also includes an optional 6-hour retreat. Interviewers masked to treatment assignments will assess outcomes 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks postrandomization. The primary outcomes will be pain-related functional limitations (based on the Roland Disability Questionnaire) and symptom bothersomeness (rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale) at 26 weeks. DISCUSSION: If MBSR is found to be an effective and cost-effective treatment option for patients with chronic back pain, it will become a valuable addition to the limited treatment options available to patients with significant psychosocial contributors to their pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

Five-week outcomes from a dosing trial of therapeutic massage for chronic neck pain.

PURPOSE: This trial was designed to evaluate the optimal dose of massage for individuals with chronic neck pain. METHODS: We recruited 228 individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain from an integrated health care system and the general population, and randomized them to 5 groups receiving various doses of massage (a 4-week course consisting of 30-minute visits 2 or 3 times weekly or 60-minute visits 1, 2, or 3 times weekly) or to a single control group (a 4-week period on a wait list). We assessed neck-related dysfunction with the Neck Disability Index (range, 0-50 points) and pain intensity with a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10 points) at baseline and 5 weeks. We used log-linear regression to assess the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement in neck-related dysfunction (≥5 points on Neck Disability Index) or pain intensity (≥30% improvement) by treatment group. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline age, outcome measures, and imbalanced covariates, 30-minute treatments were not significantly better than the wait list control condition in terms of achieving a clinically meaningful improvement in neck dysfunction or pain, regardless of the frequency of treatments. In contrast, 60-minute treatments 2 and 3 times weekly significantly increased the likelihood of such improvement compared with the control condition in terms of both neck dysfunction (relative risk = 3.41 and 4.98, P = .04 and .005, respectively) and pain intensity (relative risk = 2.30 and 2.73; P = .007 and .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: After 4 weeks of treatment, we found multiple 60-minute massages per week more effective than fewer or shorter sessions for individuals with chronic neck pain. Clinicians recommending massage and researchers studying this therapy should ensure that patients receive a likely effective dose of treatment.