STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE): results of a pragmatic randomized trial of pain coping skills training and opioid medication taper guidance for patients on long-term opioid therapy.

ABSTRACT: Because long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) for chronic pain has uncertain benefits and dose-dependent harms, safe and effective strategies for opioid tapering are needed. Adapting a promising pilot study intervention, we conducted the STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE) pragmatic clinical trial. Patients in integrated health system on moderate-to-high dose of LtOT for chronic noncancer pain were randomized individually to usual care plus intervention (n = 79) or usual care only (n = 74). The intervention included pain coping skills training and optional support for opioid taper, delivered in 18 telephone sessions over a year, with pharmacologic guidance provided to participants' primary care providers by a pain physician. Coprimary outcomes were daily opioid dose (morphine milligram equivalent [MME]), calculated using pharmacy dispensing data, and the self-reported Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity scale at 12 months (primary time point) and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included opioid misuse, opioid difficulties, opioid craving, pain self-efficacy, and global impression of change, depression, and anxiety. Only 41% randomized to the intervention completed all sessions. We did not observe significant differences between intervention and usual care for MME (adjusted mean difference: -2.3 MME; 95% confidence interval: -10.6, 5.9; P = 0.578), the Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity scale (0.0 [95% confidence interval: -0.5, 0.5], P = 0.985), or most secondary outcomes. The intervention did not lower opioid dose or improve pain or functioning. Other strategies are needed to reduce opioid doses while improving pain and function for patients who have been on LtOT for years with high levels of medical, mental health, and substance use comorbidity.

Comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of remote (telehealth and online) cognitive behavioral therapy-based treatments for high-impact chronic pain relative to usual care: study protocol for the RESOLVE multisite randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an effective but underused treatment for high-impact chronic pain. Increased access to CBT-CP services for pain is of critical public health importance, particularly for rural and medically underserved populations who have limited access due to these services being concentrated in urban and high income areas. Making CBT-CP widely available and more affordable could reduce barriers to CBT-CP use. METHODS: As part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term® (NIH HEAL) initiative, we designed and implemented a comparative effectiveness, 3-arm randomized control trial comparing remotely delivered telephonic/video and online CBT-CP-based services to usual care for patients with high-impact chronic pain. The RESOLVE trial is being conducted in 4 large integrated healthcare systems located in Minnesota, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington state and includes demographically diverse populations residing in urban and rural areas. The trial compares (1) an 8-session, one-on-one, professionally delivered telephonic/video CBT-CP program; and (2) a previously developed and tested 8-session online CBT-CP-based program (painTRAINER) to (3) usual care augmented by a written guide for chronic pain management. Participants are followed for 1 year post-allocation and are assessed at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months post-allocation. The primary outcome is minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥ 30% reduction) in pain severity (composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) assessed by a modified 11-item version of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include pain severity, pain intensity, and pain-related interference scores, quality of life measures, and patient global impression of change at 3, 6, and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness is assessed by incremental cost per additional patient with MCID in primary outcome and by cost per quality-adjusted life year achieved. Outcome assessment is blinded to group assignment. DISCUSSION: This large-scale trial provides a unique opportunity to rigorously evaluate and compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 2 relatively low-cost and scalable modalities for providing CBT-CP-based treatments to persons with high-impact chronic pain, including those residing in rural and other medically underserved areas with limited access to these services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04523714. This trial was registered on 24 August 2020.

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.

A Centralized Program with Stepped Support Increases Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 9 Years: a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening over many years is required to optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a CRC screening intervention on adherence to CRC screening over 9 years. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Integrated health care system in Washington state. PARTICIPANTS: Between August 2008 and November 2009, 4653 adults in a Washington state integrated health care system aged 50-74 due for CRC screening were randomized to usual care (UC; N =1163) or UC plus study interventions (interventions: N = 3490). INTERVENTIONS: Years 1 and 2: (arm 1) UC or this plus study interventions; (arm 2) mailed fecal tests or information on scheduling colonoscopy; (arm 3) mailings plus brief telephone assistance; or (arm 4) mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation. In year 3, stepped-intensity participants (arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) still eligible for screening were randomized to either stopped or continued interventions in years 3 and 5-9. MAIN MEASURES: Time in adherence to CRC testing over 9 years (covered time, primary outcome), and percent with no CRC testing in participants assigned to any intervention compared to UC only. Poisson regression models estimated incidence rate ratios for covered time, adjusting for patient characteristics and accounting for variable follow-up time. KEY RESULTS: Compared to UC, intervention participants had 21% more covered time over 9 years (57.5% vs. 69.1%; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.25, P<0.001). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time among intervention patients. Compared to UC, intervention participants were also more likely to have completed at least one CRC screening test over 9 years or until censorship (88.6% vs. 80.6%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An outreach program that included mailed fecal tests and phone follow-up led to increased adherence to CRC testing and fewer age-eligible individuals without any CRC testing over 9 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up (SOS), NCT00697047, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00697047.

Financial Incentives to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake and Decrease Disparities: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Objective: To examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled. Interventions: Interventions were (1) mail only (n = 284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n = 270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n = 284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures. Results: A total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P = .11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P = .04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Financial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00697047.

A centralized mailed program with stepped increases of support increases time in compliance with colorectal cancer screening guidelines over 5 years: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening over many years is required to optimize reductions in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. However, no prior trials have compared strategies for obtaining long-term adherence. METHODS: Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up was implemented in an integrated health care organization in Washington State. Between 2008 and 2009, 4675 individuals aged 50 to 74 years were randomized to receive the usual care (UC), which included clinic-based strategies to increase CRC screening (arm 1), or, in years 1 and 2, mailings with a call-in number for colonoscopy and mailed fecal tests (arm 2), mailings plus brief telephone assistance (arm 3), or mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation (arm 4). Active-intervention subjects (those in arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) who were still eligible for CRC screening were randomized to mailings being stopped or continued in years 3 and 5. The time in compliance with CRC screening over 5 years was compared for persons assigned to any intervention and persons assigned to UC. Screening tests contributed time on the basis of national guidelines for screening intervals (fecal tests annually, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years). RESULTS: All participants contributed data, but they were censored at disenrollment, death, the age of 76 years, or a diagnosis of CRC. Compared with UC participants, intervention participants had 31% more adjusted covered time over 5 years (incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.37; covered time, 47.5% vs 62.1%). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time. CONCLUSIONS: In a health care organization with clinic-based activities to increase CRC screening, a centralized program led to increased CRC screening adherence over 5 years. Longer term data on screening adherence and its impact on CRC outcomes are needed. Cancer 2017;123:4472-80. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

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.

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.

Mediators of yoga and stretching for chronic low back pain.

Although yoga is an effective treatment for chronic low back pain, little is known about the mechanisms responsible for its benefits. In a trial comparing yoga to intensive stretching and self-care, we explored whether physical (hours of back exercise/week), cognitive (fear avoidance, body awareness, and self-efficacy), affective (psychological distress, perceived stress, positive states of mind, and sleep), and physiological factors (cortisol, DHEA) mediated the effects of yoga or stretching on back-related dysfunction (Roland-Morris Disability Scale (RDQ)). For yoga, 36% of the effect on 12-week RDQ was mediated by increased self-efficacy, 18% by sleep disturbance, 9% by hours of back exercise, and 61% by the best combination of all possible mediators (6 mediators). For stretching, 23% of the effect was mediated by increased self-efficacy, 14% by days of back exercise, and 50% by the best combination of all possible mediators (7 mediators). In open-ended questions, ≥20% of participants noted the following treatment benefits: learning new exercises (both groups), relaxation, increased awareness, and the benefits of breathing (yoga), benefits of regular practice (stretching). Although both self-efficacy and hours of back exercise were the strongest mediators for each intervention, compared to self-care, qualitative data suggest that they may exert their benefits through partially distinct mechanisms.

Dosing study of massage for chronic neck pain: protocol for the dose response evaluation and analysis of massage [DREAM] trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing popularity of massage, its effectiveness for treating neck pain remains unclear, largely because of the poor quality of research. A major deficiency of previous studies has been their use of low "doses" of massage that massage therapists consider inadequate. Unfortunately, the number of minutes per massage session, sessions per week, or weeks of treatment necessary for massage to have beneficial or optimal effects are not known. This study is designed to address these gaps in our knowledge by determining, for persons with chronic neck pain: 1) the optimal combination of number of treatments per week and length of individual treatment session, and 2) the optimal number of weeks of treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: In this study, 228 persons with chronic non-specific neck pain will be recruited from primary health care clinics in a large health care system in the Seattle area. Participants will be randomized to a wait list control group or 4 weeks of treatment with one of 5 different dosing combinations (2 or 3 30-min treatments per week or 1, 2, or 3 60-min treatments per week). At the end of this 4-week primary treatment period, participants initially receiving each of the 5 dosing combinations will be randomized to a secondary treatment period of either no additional treatment or 6 weekly 60-min massages. The primary outcomes, neck-related dysfunction and pain, will be assessed by blinded telephone interviewers 5, 12, and 26 weeks post-randomization. To better characterize the trajectory of treatment effects, these interview data will be supplemented with outcomes data collected by internet questionnaire at 10, 16, 20 and 39 weeks. Comparisons of outcomes for the 6 groups during the primary treatment period will identify the optimal weekly dose, while comparisons of outcomes during the secondary treatment period will determine if 10 weeks of treatment is superior to 4 weeks. DISCUSSION: A broad dosing schedule was included in this trial. If adherence to any of these doses is poor, those doses will be discontinued. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the ID number of NCT01122836

A randomized trial comparing yoga, stretching, and a self-care book for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is a common problem lacking highly effective treatment options. Small trials suggest that yoga may have benefits for this condition. This trial was designed to determine whether yoga is more effective than conventional stretching exercises or a self-care book for primary care patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: A total of 228 adults with chronic low back pain were randomized to 12 weekly classes of yoga (92 patients) or conventional stretching exercises (91 patients) or a self-care book (45 patients). Back-related functional status (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire, a 23-point scale) and bothersomeness of pain (an 11-point numerical scale) at 12 weeks were the primary outcomes. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 26 weeks by interviewers unaware of treatment group. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline values, 12-week outcomes for the yoga group were superior to those for the self-care group (mean difference for function, -2.5 [95% CI, -3.7 to -1.3]; P < .001; mean difference for symptoms, -1.1 [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.4]; P < .001). At 26 weeks, function for the yoga group remained superior (mean difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.5]; P < .001). Yoga was not superior to conventional stretching exercises at any time point. CONCLUSION: Yoga classes were more effective than a self-care book, but not more effective than stretching classes, in improving function and reducing symptoms due to chronic low back pain, with benefits lasting at least several months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00447668.

A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of massage for chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 2 types of massage and usual care for chronic back pain. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized, controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, with centralized allocation concealment. Participants were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to massage versus usual care. Massage therapists were unblinded. The study personnel who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00371384) SETTING: An integrated health care delivery system in the Seattle area. PATIENTS: 401 persons 20 to 65 years of age with nonspecific chronic low back pain. INTERVENTION: Structural massage (n = 132), relaxation massage (n = 136), or usual care (n = 133). MEASUREMENTS: Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and symptom bothersomeness scores at 10 weeks (primary outcome) and at 26 and 52 weeks (secondary outcomes). Mean group differences of at least 2 points on the RDQ and at least 1.5 points on the symptom bothersomeness scale were considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: The massage groups had similar functional outcomes at 10 weeks. The adjusted mean RDQ score was 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.0 points) lower in the relaxation group and 2.5 points (CI, 1.4 to 3.5 points) lower in the structural massage group than in the usual care group, and adjusted mean symptom bothersomeness scores were 1.7 points (CI, 1.2 to 2.2 points) lower with relaxation massage and 1.4 points (CI, 0.8 to 1.9 points) lower with structural massage. The beneficial effects of relaxation massage on function (but not on symptom reduction) persisted at 52 weeks but were small. LIMITATION: Participants were not blinded to treatment. CONCLUSION: Massage therapy may be effective for treatment of chronic back pain, with benefits lasting at least 6 months. No clinically meaningful difference between relaxation and structural massage was observed in terms of relieving disability or symptoms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Comparison of yoga versus stretching for chronic low back pain: protocol for the Yoga Exercise Self-care (YES) trial.

BACKGROUND: Back pain, one of the most prevalent conditions afflicting American adults, is the leading reason for using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies. Yoga is an increasingly popular "mind-body" CAM therapy often used for relieving back pain and several small studies have found yoga effective for this condition. This study will assess whether yoga is effective for treating chronic low back pain compared with self care and exercise and will explore the mechanisms responsible for any observed benefits. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 210 participants with low back pain lasting at least 3 months will be recruited from primary care clinics of a large healthcare system based in Seattle. They will be randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive 12 weekly yoga classes, 12 weekly conventional therapeutic exercise classes of comparable physical exertion, or a self-care book. Interviewers masked to participants' treatment group will assess outcomes at baseline and 6, 12 and 26 weeks after randomization. Primary outcomes will be back-related dysfunction and symptom bothersomeness. In addition, data will be collected on physical measurements (e.g., flexion) at baseline and 12 weeks and saliva samples will be obtained at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Information will be collected on specific physical, psychological, and physiological factors to allow exploration of possible mechanisms of action through which yoga could relieve back pain and dysfunction. The effectiveness of yoga will be assessed using analysis of covariance (using general estimating equations - GEE) within an intention-to-treat context. If yoga is found effective, further analyses will explore whether yoga's benefits are attributable to physical, psychological and/or physiological factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide the clearest evidence to date about the value of yoga as a therapeutic option for treating chronic back pain, and if the results are positive, will help focus future, more in-depth, research on the most promising potential mechanisms of action identified by this study.

Effectiveness of therapeutic massage for generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although massage is one of the most popular complementary and alternative medical (CAM) treatments for anxiety, its effectiveness has never been rigorously evaluated for a diagnosed anxiety disorder. This study evaluates the effectiveness of therapeutic massage for persons with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Sixty-eight persons with GAD were randomized to therapeutic massage (n=23), thermotherapy (n=22), or relaxing room therapy (n=23) for a total of 10 sessions over 12 weeks. Mean reduction in anxiety was measured by the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS). Secondary outcomes included 50% reduction in HARS and symptom resolution of GAD, changes in depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8)), worry and GAD-related disability. We compared changes in these outcomes in the massage and control groups posttreatment and at 6 months using generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression. RESULTS: All groups had improved by the end of treatment (adjusted mean change scores for the HARS ranged from -10.0 to -13.0; P<.001) and maintained their gains at the 26-week followup. No differences were seen between groups (P=.39). Symptom reduction and resolution of GAD, depressive symptoms, worry and disability showed similar patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Massage was not superior to the control treatments, and all showed some clinically important improvements, likely due to some beneficial but generalized relaxation response. Because the relaxing room treatment is substantially less expensive than the other treatments, a similar treatment packaged in a clinically credible manner might be the most cost effective option for persons with GAD who want to try relaxation-oriented CAM therapies.

Effectiveness of focused structural massage and relaxation massage for chronic low back pain: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic back pain is a major public health problem and the primary reason patients seek massage treatment. Despite the growing use of massage for chronic low back pain, there have been few studies of its effectiveness. This trial will be the first evaluation of the effectiveness of relaxation massage for chronic back pain and the first large trial of a focused structural form of massage for this condition. METHODS AND DESIGN: A total of 399 participants (133 in each of three arms) between the ages of 20 and 65 years of age who have low back pain lasting at least 3 months will be recruited from an integrated health care delivery system. They will be randomized to one of two types of massage ("focused structural massage" or "relaxation massage"), or continued usual medical care. Ten massage treatments will be provided over 10 weeks. The primary outcomes, standard measures of dysfunction and bothersomeness of low back pain, will be assessed at baseline and after 10, 26, and 52 weeks by telephone interviewers masked to treatment assignment. General health status, satisfaction with back care, days of back-related disability, perceived stress, and use and costs of healthcare services for back pain will also be measured. Outcomes across assigned treatment groups will be compared using generalized estimating equations, accounting for participant correlation and adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex. For both primary outcome measures, this trial will have at least 85% power to detect the presence of a minimal clinically significant difference among the three treatment groups and 91% power for pairwise comparisons. Secondary analyses will compare the proportions of participants in each group that improve by a clinically meaningful amount. CONCLUSION: Results of this trial will help clarify the value of two types of massage therapy for chronic low back pain.